THAKURJI SHRIJI DWARKADHEESHJI Vs. GAPPULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge of Jaipur City dated May 17, 1962 because of the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for eviction.

(2.) THERE is a temple of Thakurji Shri Dwarkadheeshji in Jaipur City. The defendant took four shops of that temple on rent, when it was under the management of the state government, on a rent of Rs. 150/- per mensem, and thereafter he took the other two shops on a rent of Rs. 65/- per mensem. Devendra Prasad was appointed as the "adhikari" of the temple in November 1949 Verandahs were added to all the six shops in 1953 and a consolidated rent of Rs. 251/8/- per mensem was fixed for them from that time. It was pleaded in the plaint that the shops were let for the period ended July 31, 1957 and that the defendant sub-let all of them for unlawful gain. It was also pleaded that the defendant did not pay the rent after September 30. 1957, in spite of notice. Further, it was pleaded that the shops were required for the personal, reasonable and bonafide use of Devendra Prasad. On all these grounds the present suit was raised on February 28,1958, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) IT would thus appear that the test to determine the authority for the giving of a notice is whether the notice is such that the tenant may act upon it with safety or, in other words, that it is a notice which is binding on the landlord. In the present case, the landlord was the idol and since its "adhikari" gave the notice, there was no reason to take the view that it was an unauthorised notice, or that the idol was not bound by it. There is therefore no force in this argument also. In fact I find that issue No. 1 related to the question of the authority of Devendra Prasad to file the suit on behalf of the idol and even though that issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, its correctness has not been challenged in this Court. IT must therefore be held that there is no substance in the argument that the notice was unauthorised.