RAJA LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 47/73, dated 31st March 1975. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 12,337 on account of arrears of rent and damages for the wrongful act of the defendants plaintiff (respondent ?) the property was leased to the State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month w.e.f. 27-6-1964.

(2.) Consequently, a part of the property, namely, the Swimming Pool was taken back by the landlord and the rent was reduced to Rs. 667/-. The plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint has stated that the Commercial Taxes Department was most reckless in installing two ceiling fans in a double storey house in the first floor in the month of May/June, 1969. It has been further stated that installation of two ceiling fans affixed on the roof of the hall fell down. It was further alleged that the fixation of the ceiling fans was improperly and insufficiently done and the southern half of the roof of the hall fell down and has also caused cracks in three walls of the hall. There is further allegation that 21 Jodhpuri Pattis also cracked. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 5000/- on account of damages to the property.

(3.) The Dy. Commissioner vide his letter dated 30th December, 1969 intimated the plaintiff that the department will vacate the building on 31st December, 1969. It was alleged that the building was not vacated even up to the date of the riling of the suit and, as such, the plaintiff has claimed the rent for the period from 1st January, 1970 and onwards. The plaintiff has filed a suit for Rs. 7,337/-, the rent for the month of January to November, 1970. Thus, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 12,337/-. Defendants submitted the written statement and denied the allegations made against them. It was further contended by the defendants that the property was vacated and the plaintiff was intimated to take over the possession of the vacant property. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs were intimated that the peaceful vacant possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff. It was further mentioned that even on 17th March, 1970 the plaintiff was informed that the disputed building has been vacated in the evening of 31st December, 1969. It was also alleged that the plaintiff vide letter No. 28th November, 1969 intimated the State that the vacant possession of the premises would be taken provided two months notice, electric charges for the current month and inter alia many other conditions referred to in the said letter are fulfilled. Learned Addl. District Judge framed the following issues :-