LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-64

SUKH SUNDER DEVI Vs. SARASWATI DEVI

Decided On February 26, 2009
Sukh Sunder Devi Appellant
V/S
SARASWATI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) AS happened in this case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction against her tenant in the trial court on 6.5.1983 with the allegation that the defendant/respondent took the suit premises on rent on 19.5.1981 for Rs. 140/- per month. The defendant sub-let the premises to M/s. Marudhara Sanitary Traders and parted with possession and handed over it to said M/s. Marudhara Sanitary Traders. The plaintiff also stated that the said sub- letting is without her consent.

(3.) ON the basis of above pleadings, issues were framed by the trial court and the issue involved in this appeal is whether the defendant sub-let the suit premises and parted with possession of the premises to the sub-lettee. In the trial court, the plaintiff produced her husband Ganga Shanker as witness PW1, PW2 Moti Lal, PW3 Vasudev and PW4 Chiman Singh whereas in rebuttal to the said oral evidence of the plaintiff and plaintiff's witnesses, the defendant herself appeared to give her statement on 1.5.1989 as DW1 and after some statement of defendant, the defendant's counsel sought time to produce the partnership deed obviously the partnership deed which might have been between the defendant and her partner but after 1.5.1989 till 16.8.1990, neither the defendant appeared nor she produced the witness to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff produced an invitation card of opening of M/s. Marudhara Sanitary Traders as Ex.4 issued by Bheemraj Gandhi and Jagdish Gandhi with address Shanker Bhawan, Gole Building, 1st B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, which is the building wherein the suit premises is situated. As sated above, neither the defendant appeared nor she produced any witness to rebut the oral evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses. She also did not choose to produce any documentary evidence. As she herself did not appear, therefore, she could not have proved any document to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.