JANTA TRAVELS PVT LIMITED Vs. RAJ KUMAR SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-81995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 253/1995 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds :-

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant before the trial Court, it was contended inter-alia that a lease agreement was executed between the parties and registered on 25-2-1981 and the premises was handed over to the defendant by the father of the plaintiff Late Dr. V. Ratan. It was further contained in the written statement that terms and conditions of the said lease agreement were also settled by Late Dr. V. Ratan - who inducted the defendant into the possession of the suit premises, but since Dr. V. Ratan was of old age and was not in good health he had requested the defendant to execute the lease agreement in favour of his son Raj Kumar Seth, respondent herein. It was further contended by the defendant that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was also paid towards the security to the plaintiff as per the instructions of Late Dr. V. Ratan against a valid receipt. It was further contended by the defendant that Dr. V. Ratan expired in February, 1983 and thereafter his second son namely, Ram Ratan sent communication to the defendant enclosing a copy of the Will of Late Dr. V. Ratan under which the suit premises had fallen to his share and henceforth the rent should be paid to him. When his request was not adhered to he again sent another communication to the defendant that if the rent was not paid, he would file a civil suit against the defendant at his cost and consequence, hence a bona fide dispute was created as to whom the rent should be paid which compelled the defendant to send a communication to the plaintiff to clarify the position in this regard as to which legal heir the rent should be paid. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues :-