GUMAN MAL Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs - landlords Guman Mal and ors, legal representatives of one Sanwal Chand, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 31.1.2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs - landlords was rejected as hit by the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. The trial Court had, however, decreed the suit No. 23/2001 on 19.1.2007 directing eviction of the defendant - tenant on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiffs. The suit premises is a shop situated at Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore.

(2.) MR . O.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - appellants submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the recent decision of this Court in the case of Late Mahadev and ors. v. Babu Lal and ors., reported in 2006(4) RDD 1868 in which this Court has held that Section 14(3) of the Act does not give a fresh protection of five years every time the landlord changes with respect to the suit premises let out for commercial purposes and it was further held that the irregularity, if any, in the institution of the suit before expiry of five years from the commencement of the tenancy also stands cured if the period of five years expires before the decree on the ground of personal bona fide necessity is passed by the trial Court. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kahtoon Begum (deceased v. Bhagwan Das and ors., reported in 2004(1) RCR(Rent) 272 : 2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 761 in which case it was held by a coordinate Bench of this Court that the objection under Section 14(3) of the Act can even be waived by the tenant. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants - plaintiffs was in the case of Ranchod B. Das v. LRs. of Kanhaiya Lal, reported in 2005(1) RCR(Rent) 339 : 2005(2) WLC (Raj.) 10. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that since the defendant had admitted that the father of the present plaintiffs Sanwal Chand had let out the shop in question to the present defendant Babu Lal in the year 1986, therefore, the execution of the fresh rent note by Guman Mal, the present plaintiff No. 1 on 21.12.1996 after death of his father Sanwal Chand in favour of the same tenant increasing the rent, did not bring into existence any fresh tenancy and even though there was no plea raised by the defendant in this regard, the first appellate Court held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 14(3) of the Act, which was absolutely incorrect. He also raised objection to the use of tenor of language by the first appellate Court deprecating the judgment of the learned trial Court by which the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the first appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal of the defendant - tenant on the anvil of Section 14(3) of the Act. This Court in the case of Late Mahadev and ors. v. Babu Lal and ors. (supra) has held as under :