MADAN LAL Vs. BHUPENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal decree No. 96/08 is under challenge, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No. 5, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No. 16/98, by which, the appellant-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.

(2.) According to brief facts of the case, respondent-landlord preferred suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in the year 1998 with assertion that he was allotted plot by the U.I.T. Jodhpur and he is sole owner of the said plot upon which he has constructed a house, situated at Baiji-ka-Talab, near Ramdeoji Temple and said house was given on rent to the appellant- defendant under rent-deed dated 31.1.1976. Suit was filed on the basis of default as well as on the ground of bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. Learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues and after framing the issues, statements of five prosecution witnesses were recorded and no evidence was produced by the appellant-defendant inspite of granting enough time. Upon adjudication of the issues, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, by which, decree for eviction and recovery of rent was passed on 26.2.2005. Said judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the appellant-defendant before the District Judge, Jodhpur by way of filing appeal which was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jodhpur. Labour lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 vide judgment dated 2.3.2009.

(3.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant on the ground that though the appellant specifically pleaded that the rent-deed Ex. 3 is not properly stamped and the same is not a registered document, therefore, the said rent-deed is not admissible in evidence, the learned trial Court has, however, not looked into the provisions of Stamp Act, therefore, judgments rendered by both the Courts below deserve to be quashed. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the rent-deed being not properly stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence but the learned trial Court wrongly dismissed the application of the defendant for raising said objection and wrongly arrived at the finding that the rent-deed is not inadmissible in law.