MISHRI BAI Vs. KRISHNA LAL CHADDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Suit for eviction from the disputed shop filed by the plaintiff appellant was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 19. 7. 1995. THE said Court recorded the following findings : (1) that the defendant-respondent committed default in the payment of rent; (2)that the disputed shop was not used by the defendant respondent without any reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let-out to him for a continuous period of more than six months immediately preceeding the date of suit; (3) that the defendant-respondent obtained suitable premises for his business in Transport Nagar, Jaipur; and (4) that the defendant-respondent sublet/parted with possession of the disputed shop to Shri Hari Kishan Sharma.

(2.) BEING aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant-respon- dent filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his judgment and decree dated 9. 10. 1996. The learned Judge held as under : (a) that sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for short the `act') is appli- cable only to residential premises and is not applicable to commercial premises : (b) that the premises was not sub-let/parted with possession to Shri Hari Kishan Sharma but Shri Hari Kishan Sharma was agent/servant of defendant-respondent; (c) that the finding of the trial Court that Hari Kishan Sharma has been doing business of his own and has not been doing the business of defendant-respondent is perverse; and (d) that the finding of the trial Court that the disputed shop was not used without reasonable cause by the defendant for a period of more than six months is also perverse.

(3.) THE aforesaid witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point. THE defendant in his statement did not say a single word that the disputed shop did not remain closed for a period of six months continuously immediately before the filing of the suit. THE learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, at page No. 8 of his judgment, without discussing the evidence of the witnesses, recorded the following finding : ******