BASANTI LAL Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal of the defendant - tenant has been filed being aggrieved, by the concurrent judgments of two courts below in an eviction matter on the ground of subletting of the suit premises; a shop situated at Bus Stand, Kapasan. The suit shop is of small size 41/2 x 7 ft. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent Ramchander on 1.5.1997. The plaintiff had filed the suit oil the ground of default, subletting and bonafide need. However, the plaintiff did not press before the learned trial Court the ground of default and bonafide need, but only pressed the ground of subletting in issue No. 2 framed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the said suit shop was given on rent to the defendant Deep Chand, father of the present appellant Basanti Lal in the year 1986 under the rent note executed vide Ex.1 but since jn the said suit shop, the said tenant Deep Chand never carried on any business, but his son Basanti Lal carried on business, according to the plaintiff, there was subletting by the tenant to his son Basanti Lal and therefore, on the ground of eviction set out in Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950, the plaintiff was entitled to eviction of the defendant. The said defendant Deep Chand died on 1.7.1988, whereas the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 10.7.1987,

(3.) MR . S.L. Jain, learned Counsel for the defendant - tenant argued that the present appellant Basanti Lal son of the original tenant Deep Chand was carrying on the business in the said suit shop right from beginning in the year 1986 and even after the death of his father Deep Chand on 1.7.1988, he continued to carry on the business of Readymade garments in the said shop and therefore, he inherited the tenancy within the meaning of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 and therefore, there was no question of his father subletting the suit shop to him. As against that, he became the statutory tenant of the suit premises in place of his father. He further submitted that the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that father had parted with the possession in favour of the son to his own exclusion and therefore, the grounds stated for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act were hot at all satisfied and therefore, the degree of eviction given by the Court below deserves to be set aside. He extensively read the statement of P.W.1 Ram Chander himself as the original tenant Deep Chand was never examined by the learned trial Court and submitted that from the evidence of the plaintiff himself, it was clear that father of the present appellant Basanti Lal frequently came to the suit shop in question from his residence at Hindoll, a nearby village about 9 kms, away and since all his three sons carried on different business at Kapasan, he used to come to Kapasan frequently and even sat for doing business at the said suit shop along with his son - present appellant and therefore, there was no question of subletting by the father in favour of his son. He also submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove that any compensation was given by the son to his father for his exclusive possession over the suit shop in question and therefore, the grounds of eviction stated in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act were not satisfied. He relied upon the various case laws, a brief narration of which will be made hereinafter.