OMPRAKASH SAINI Vs. GANGA DEVI MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Appeal No.48/2009 (69/2009) by which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur in Civil Suit No.207/1999.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts for the disposal of the present second appeal are that the present suit was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 7 in the trial court in November, 1999 for eviction for the reason that appellant neither tendered nor paid the rent of shop since October, 1998 and also dismantled the plaster of walls and the flooring. It was also alleged that the defendant-appellant was also intending to sub-let the suit shop, therefore, decree of eviction be passed and a mandatory injunction be also passed in favour of the appellant not to sub-let the shop in question. During the pendency of the suit, the suit property was sold by respondent nos. 1 to 7 to respondent nos. 8 and 9 vide registered sale-deed dated 10.2.2000. The respondent nos. 8 and 9 were impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. It appears that an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was filed which was allowed. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaint was amended subsequently and para 6 was added in the plaint which was in relation to the fact that the suit premises was sold to respondent nos. 8 and 9 on 10.2.2000 and the plaintiffs transferred their all rights in the property and also permitted respondent nos. 8 and 9 to continue the suit. Reply to this amended para was also given to the effect that it was not required to be replied. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues including relief. It appears that the defence of the defendant-appellant was struck off under section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and against the order striking off the defence, appeal preferred was also dismissed and during the course of arguments, issue no.3 was not pressed, therefore, the learned trial court finding that default was committed by the defendant-appellant, as such he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The trial court decided issue nos. 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and issue no.3 was not pressed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent vide its judgment and decree dated 13.2.2009. The defendant-appellant having felt aggrieved preferred an appeal which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur who vide its judgment and decree dated 28.4.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN the case of Hukam Chand Vs. Om Chand&others (supra), the Honourable Apex Court has held that subsequent events are required to be taken into consideration in a case where transfer of interest of landlord takes place pendente lite. It does not stop the progress of the litigation and the transferee merely steps into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest whether he is impleaded as a party or not. It has also been observed that such transferee becomes bound by the result of the eviction suit including any relevant directions, terms and conditions set out in the decree. It is also observed that such transferee may seek leave of the court to come on record. IN the above case before the Honourable Apex Court while the appeal was pending, appellant filed an affidavit informing the Honourable Apex Court that the respondent-landlord had sold the disputed tenanted land. The Honourable Apex Court in the above circumstances held that there was no reason to set aside the decree against the appellant tenant.