JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. NARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed suit against the defendant-appellant for ejectment from the suit premises on the allegations that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in the suit premises for monthly rent of Rs. 35/-; the tenancy-month commences from the 9th of each calendar month; he purchased the suit premises by registered sale-deed dated 17.6.77 from one Jai Chand for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. The suit is filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and reasonable and bona fide necessity of residence of the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant denied the grounds alleged by the plaintiff for ejectment. After decision of the suit by the trial Court, the defendant-tenant moved an application before the lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for bringing certain documents on record. The said application was rejected by the lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of subletting which is a ground provided under Section 13(1)(e), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') and on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity provided under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act.

(2.) ON appeal being preferred this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) THE plaintiff has alleged in para 7 of the plaint that the defendant-tenant has sublet the premises to some other person and he is serving in the Railways. The pleading is completely missing as to whom the accommodation has been sublet by the tenant and the major defect in the pleading is that it has not been alleged that the subletting was effected without the permission of the landlord. According to me, to make out a ground under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove that subletting was done without the permission of the landlord. After going through the evidence of the landlord, P.W.1 Narain Lal, I do not find a word that the tenant has sublet the premises without the permission of the landlord. Therefore, there is not only the absence of the pleading but also the proof. The Courts below have committed a grave error of law in granting decree against the tenant for ejectment under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.