GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the defendant Gopal Krishan Singhal, arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the respondent, Ram Lal Goyal against the appellant, in respect of the property bearing No. AMC 32/123B(Old), now renumbered as 24/134 (new) situated in Kaiserganj, Ajmer. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the said property was let out to him by Shri N.N. Tondon on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/-. Shri N.N. Tondon had filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 229/64) for eviction against the plaintiff-respondent and in the said suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Munsiff Ajmer City, Ajmer on 20th August, 1965. The case of the plaintiff- respondent was further that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) that the appellant had not paid the rent for the premises from 1st July 1966 to 31st May, 1971 and had thereby committed default in payment or tender of rent for more than six months and (ii) that the appellant had renounced the character of the respondent as being his landlord and that the respondent has not waived his right. The appellant contested the said suit and pleaded that he is not a tenant of the respondent and, therefore, there was no question of payment of rent by the appellant to the respondent and default in payment of rent. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the respondent is no longer a statutory tenant in respect of the premises after the passing of the ejectment decree against him and, therefore, he has no right to file the suit. It was also pleaded by the appellant that Shri N.N. Tondon had sold the property to one Shri Prem Chand on 17th November, 1970 and that Shri N.N. Tondon also has no interest in this property.

(2.) The Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City, (Eest) by his judgment and decree dated 26th May, 1975, dismissed the said suit of the respondent. The Munsiff held that the appellant was a tenant of the respondent and that Shri N.N. Tondon had obtained a decree for ejectment against the plaintiff-respondent on 20th August, 1965. The Munsiff was, however, of the view that after the passing of the said decree on 20th August, 1965, the statutory tenancy of the plaintiff-respondent came to an end that the plaintiff was neither a contractual tenant nor a statutory tenant of the premises after the passing of the said decree of eviction. The Munsiff also held that Shri N.N. Tondon had filed an execution petition against the plaintiff-respondent and in those execution proceedings Shri N.N. Tandon had filed an application under O.21, R.97, C.P.C. and the said application under O.21, R.97, C.P.C. was dismissed by the execution Court and it was declared that the appellant who was a sub-tenant of the plaintiff in the suit premises had become the direct tenant of the same under Shri N.N. Tandon in view of S.20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 and that the said order passed by the executing Court on the application under O.21, R.97, C.P.C. was not challenged, either in appeal or revision or by filing a regular suit, and that in view of the said order passed by executing Court the appellant should be treated to have become a direct tenant of Shri N.N. Tandon. The Munsiff, therefore, found that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-respondent and the appellant and since the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not established there was no question of payment of rent by the appellant to the respondent (sic) is the renouncing character of the respondent as being the landlord.

(3.) The plaintiff respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Ajmer by his judgment and decree dated 17th Oct., 1978. The Addl. Civil Judge disagreed with the view of the Munsiff that the statutory tenancy of the plaintiff-respondent came to an end on the passing of the decree for eviction and expressed the opinion that a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated but who continues to be in possession after the termination of the tenancy is still a tenant until he is deprived of his possession in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950), (hereinafter referred to as"the Act"). The Addl. Civil Judge also observed that the appellant, in his previous statement (Ex.10) recorded on 23rd May, 1970 in the execution proceedings, had admitted that he is a tenant of the respondent and that in his statement dated 12th January, 1973, in the present suit, he had deposed that he had paid the rent up to 1966 to the respondent and the said admissions of the appellant indicated that even after the passing of the decree dated 20th August, 1965, the appellant had paid rent to the respondent and till 23rd May, 1973 he did not deny plaintiffs position as landlord or chief tenant as against him. The Addl. Civil Judge also held that the appellant could not be held to be a direct tenant of Shri N.N. Tandon on the basis of S.20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 because the said Act had been repealed with effect from 27th November, 1957 and was not in force on 20th August, 1965, the date of the passing of the decree in the suit for eviction filed by Shri N.N. Tandon against the respondent. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Addl. Civil Judge held that the appellant had committed default by not paying the rent from 1st July, 1966 onwards and that he had also denied the title of the respondent and disclaimed his character as tenant. The Addl. Civil Judge, therefore, reversed the decree passed by the Munsiff and passed a decree for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises as well as for a sum of Rs. 972/- on account of rent up to 31st May, 1970 and for future rent after 31st May, 1970 till ejectment of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge the appellant has filed this second appeal.