MISHRA ELECTRONICS Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendant, Mishra Electronics, has preferred this second appeal against impugned judgment & decree dated 24th of July, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), dismissing its appeal and affirming judgment and decree dated 27th of November, 2014, passed by Sr. Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, for eviction and recovery of rent against appellant-defendant was decreed.

(2.) Scorning the checkered history of the case, the brief facts are that respondent-plaintiff, Jagdish Kumar, filed a suit against appellant-defendant firm for eviction and recovery of rent in respect of his shop situated near Shanker Talkies, Nohar purchased by him from its former owners in the year 2008. At the threshold, in the plaint, the grounds set out by the plaintiff for eviction were reasonable and bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and dilapidated condition of the shop requiring reconstruction. The respondent-plaintiff also pleaded that appellant-defendant has not paid rent of the premises despite receiving notice dated 13.10.2009 in this behalf from him. In the plaint, it was also specifically averred that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'Act') was given to the appellant-defendant on 28.10.2009 terminating tenancy with effect from 30.11.2009, which was received by the appellant-defendant on 29.10.2009. It is further alleged in the plaint that despite termination of tenancy w.e.f. 30th of November, 2009, possession of the suit shop was not handed over by the appellant/defendant.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant and a written statement was filed denying all the allegations. In the written statement, the appellant has averred that the suit shop was not of the ownership of predecessor in title of the respondent-plaintiff but was a joint property, in which one Omprakash s/o Mahaveer Prasad was also a co-sharer, as such, the predecessor-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff had no right to sell the shop in question. Relationship of tenant and landlord with respondent-plaintiff in respect of suit shop was denied and the rate of rent of the shop in question was also disputed. Appellant-defendant also denied receiving any notice about purchase of shop by respondentplaintiff and becoming its owner, as such the respondent-plaintiff had no right to sent him notice terminating tenancy. Receipt of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was also denied and the claim of mesne profit by respondent-plaintiff too was repudiated with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.