PUSHPA SHARMA Vs. GOPAL LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned single Judge by order dated July12, 1985 has referred this case to the Full Bench for decision of the following issues : 1. Whether in a suit based on the relationship between the landlord and tenant, making praye r for eviction on the grounds set forth under S.13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1955, a decree for possession can be granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of his title?

(2.) Whether when the present issue is framed mentioning the allegation of the title of the plaintiff also, the defendant asserts his own title and denied the plaintiff's and both the parties led evidence, can it be said that no prejudice is caused to the defendant if the decree for possession is based on proof of the title of the plaintiff? 2. The facts of the case are that Gopal Lal plaintiff respondent filed a suit against Smt. Pushpa Sharma defendant appellant for ejectment of certain residential premises situated in Jaipur City. The suit was based on the ground of default in the payment of rent for more than six months, material alteration in the premises and for reasonable and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant in the written statement denied the tenancy as well as the ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant also set up a plea that she was herself the owner of the suit premises. The defendant denied almost all the allegations made in the plaint. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 9 issues but we are concerned only with issues Nos.1 and 8 which read as under : 1. "Whether the plaintiff is the owner of suit premises and the defendant has taken from him the premises shown in para No.1of the plaint on rent for Rs. 50/- p.m. on 1-7-72?" (P) 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not able to get the possession of the premises in suit without filing a suit for declaration and possession and paying proper Court Fees? (D)

(3.) Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence and thereafter the learned Munsif while deciding issue No.1 held that the defendant was not the tenant of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. Learned Munsif did not consider it necessary to decide other issues as the defendant was not found to be the tenant of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif under issue No.8 found that no prejudice had been caused to the defendant and therefore the suit can be decreed on the basis of title. Thus on the basis of the finding that the plaintiff had established his ownership of the suit premises, the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property was decreed.