PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. OSWAL SINGH SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendants have laid this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to assail judgment & decree dated 16th of February, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 24th of April, 2017, passed by Addl. Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'), allowing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for arrears of rent and eviction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff laid a suit for eviction & recovery of arrears of rent against appellantdefendants on the ground of default in payment of rent, inter-alia, stating therein that the suit premises, Quarters No.20 & 27, Girdhari Singh Ji Ka Nohra, Near Mahatma Gandhi School, Jodhpur, were rented out to defendants' father Chhotelal on monthly rent of Rs. 7 but time and again he defaulted in payment of rent as such the matter was taken up in litigation before the court concerned by filing various suits for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. First of such suit was filed way back in the year 1958 against father of defendants in which decree was passed despite that on the request of Chhotelal he was not evicted and tenancy continued. However, Chhotelal again defaulted in payment of rent and another suit was filed by plaintiff against him in the year 1965 but that suit was closed on depositing the arrears of rent giving him benefit of first default at his request. Chottelal defaulted once more in payment of rent, which led to filing of one more suit against him in the year 1978 but he expired during the pendency of the suit and later on his legal heirs compromised the matter with the plaintiff by depositing the arrears of rent. As the property in question was with Receiver appointed by Addl. District Judge No.3 in Civil Original Suit Nos.146/78 and 135/95, after decision in those cases the property in question came in possession of the plaintiff on 31.11996 yet the legal heirs of defendant Chhotelal did not tender or paid rent to the plaintiff and on account of second default the appellant-defendants became unauthorized occupants and are liable to be evicted. With these averments the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit with costs.

(3.) Appellant-Defendants filed written statement to the suit but as the right to defend was already closed by the superior Court of Addl. District No.6 in Case No.3/14, the same was not taken into consideration by the trial Court.