SARDARILAL Vs. GAJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff, Sardarilal S/o Sh. Balaram, has filed the present first appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC, 1908, aggrieved by rejection of his eviction suit filed for seeking eviction of the defendant/tenant, namely, Gajanand S/o Sh. Manoharlal, from the suit premises and recovery of due rent of Rs. 31,500/ - in respect of suit property, a residential house, situated at BF -25, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar.

(2.) The suit came to be dismissed by the learned court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, vide its judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005 on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish the relationship of landlord -tenant between the parties. The issue about default in payment of rent was thus not decided but another grounds for eviction, viz. bonafide need of the suit property for the plaintiff and his family members was decided against the appellant/plaintiff. The relevant findings of the learned trial court are quoted herein below for ready reference: -

(3.) Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff/landlord urged that the suit property in question was originally allotted by U.I.T., Sri Ganganagar, in favour of one Jawaharlal S/o Sh. Chandiram vide (Ex. 10), which was later on transferred to one Mahendra S/o Gurbachan Singh vide Exhibit -A/4 under an Agreement to Sell and the said Mahendra in turn executed another Agreement to Sell in favour of defendant, Gajanand S/o Manoharlal. On 31.08.2001 the defendant, Gajanand, executed yet another Agreement to Sell in favour of plaintiff/appellant, Sardarilal S/o Balaram for Rs. 5,00,000/ - and a written agreement (Ex. 5) was executed, and the said suit property, which is a residential house, was sought to be transferred to the plaintiff/appellant but the parties agreed that the possession of the suit property be kept by the defendant, Gajanand, as tenant on the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/ - for which rent was paid vide Rent Receipts (Exhibits 2 to 5). Besides execution of the Agreement to Sell executed by the defendant, Gajanand in favour of Sardarilal, 4 (four) rent receipts vide Exhibits - 2 to 5 showing payment of Rs. 3500/ - as monthly rent were produced by the plaintiff in support of his averments in the plaint that there was relationship of landlord -tenant between these parties qua the suit property. The defendant/respondent, Gajanand, however, denied the said relationship and claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that even though the question of title was not relevant in the proceedings of eviction suit, however, the learned trial court has denied the eviction only on the ground of bald denial of such relationship by the defendant/tenant and existence of said Rent Receipts and Agreement to Sell executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Sardarilal. He, therefore, prayed that the present first appeal of landlord deserves to be allowed and eviction decree deserves to be granted in favour of landlord.