SOHAN LAL Vs. RAM DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge. Bhilwara dated March 30, 1977 affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Bhilwara.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondents came with the case that the shop in dispute was originally owned by one Kajore who mortgaged it with Gulam Abbas on 12 -11 -56. The defendant was inducted as a tenant of the shop by Gulam Abbas on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. Pyare Lal Khateek who was legal representative of deceased Kajore redeemed the mortgage on 18 -1 -1974. The plaintiff -respondents purchased the suit premises from Pyare Lal on 21.1.974 Gulam Abbas served a notice to the defendant informing him about the redemption of mortgage and sale of property in favour of the plaintiff -respondents vide registered notice dated 21 -8 -1974. The plaintiffs also served a notice to the defendant determining the tenancy. When the defendant appellant did not vacate the shop inspite of the notice, the plaintiff -respondents brought the suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 690/ - as rent and damages and also prayed for his rejectment from the suit premises. The suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Bhilwara. The defendant -appellant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff should have paid court fee on the basis of the market value of the suit permises. I may pause to mention here that the plaintiffs paid court fees under sub Section (2) of Section 41 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) on the basis of annual rent. Both the courts below decreed the suit for eviction as well as rent and damages holding that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees was proper. The defendant has now come up in second appeal in this court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the defendant -appellant has urged that there is a distinction between a tenant at sufferance and a tenant holding over. According to him a tenant at sufferance is one who continues in possession of the premises after the termination of the tenancy against the wishes of the landlord, while a tenant holding over is one who continues in possession of the premises after the determination of the tenancy with the consent of the landlord. According to him Section 41(2) would be applicable to a tenant holding over but not to a tenant at sufferance. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Gobinda Ram Agarwala v. Dulu Pada Dutta and Ors. : AIR1928Cal753 and Champat v. Balakdas AIR 1925 Nag 131.