HARISH CHANDRA Vs. CHOTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, dated the 20th May, 1953.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that Sualal, Chothmal, Shri Niwas and Sitaram filed a suit in the court of Munsif Kotputli. THEir case was that they carried on business at Shahpura in Jaipur district in the name of Hardeoji Bhagwanji. Defendant Harish Chandra's father Ghinsalal and grand-father Ram Prasad carried on business in the name of Ram Prasad Ghinsalal. THE plaintiffs had 3 shops situated at Shahpura. THE defendant's father and grand-father Ghinsalal and Ram Prasad took the said shops on rent on Pos Sudi 12th Smt. 1991 corresponding to 16. 1. 35 on the condition of paying rent at the rate of Rs. 21/8/-p. a. THEy executed a rent-note in the plaintiffs' favour but it was signed only by Ghinsalal (defendant's father) on behalf of himself and his father Ram Prasad. A few years after Ghinsalal died. It was averred by the plaintiffs that Ghinsalal kept on paying rent during his life-time and Ram Prasad also continued to pay rent for about 4 years. After Ram Prasad's death all the three shops went into the possession of the defendant Harishchandra. It was further stated that Harishchandra being minor, his mother who was his natural guardian kept on paying rent upto Smt. 1999. One of the three shops was later on returned by the defendant to the plaintiffs and only 2 remained in his possession. It was alleged that the rent for the two shops for Smt. years 2000, 2001 and 2002 remained unpaid. According to the plaintiffs, this rent amounted to Rs. 47/13/-and it was not paid by the defendant inspite of notice. It was therefore prayed that a decree for the said amount and ejectment be passed against the defendant.

(3.) ANOTHER case referred by learned counsel is Donkangouda Ramchandragouda vs. Revanshiddappa Shivalingappa Balganur (6 ). It is also not helpful to him because it was found by the learned Judges that the document executed by the tenant created a tenancy for his lifetime and, therefore, on his death the possession of his heirs became adverse to the landlord. It has already been mentioned above that if a certain tenancy is for the lifetime of a particular tenant, it would certainly terminate on his death and his heirs cannot inherit any interest.