RAMPAL GARG Vs. SHRIMAD DAYANAND ORPHANAGE AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and mesne profits. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated within a narrow compass. There is a building situate on Srinagar Road in Ajmer belonging to the plaintiff Shrimad Dayanand Orphanage, Ajmer. Some apartments of this building on the ground floor as well as on the first floor were rented out to the defendant-appellant Rampal by a rent note dated 17th December, 1962 (marked Ex.1). The plaintiff's case is that the defendant Rampal sublet a portion of the leased premises without the permission of the landlord and had thereby incurred the liability of being evicted from the premises in question. Another ground relied upon by the plaintiff for ejecting the defendant is that the defendant had built a suitable residence for himself behind Aryanagar and had shifted to that house. It may be stated here that the plaintiff had also relied upon certain other grounds such as carrying out unauthorised additions and alterations in the leased premises, encroaching upon certain apartments which had not been leased out, so on and so forth, but it is not necessary to make any detailed reference to the other grounds as the same have not been relied upon by the plaintiff either in the lower courts or in this Court. After serving a notice of ejectment as required under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff brought the present suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer City (East) Ajmer on 11-5-1964 against the defendant for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent and mesne profits after the date of service of notice of ejectment. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit and pleaded inter alia that he had not sublet any part of the leased premises in contravention of the terms of the rent-note. After recording evidence led by the parties, the learned Munsif held that no sub-letting without the permission of the landlord had been proved. He also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had built suitable residence behind Aryanagar and had occupied the same In view of these findings, the learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment though a decree for arrears of rent as claimed was passed. It may be observed here that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the arrears of rent and the decree awarded by the trial court in this respect.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Ajmer who by his judgment and decree dated 11th October, 1968 reversed the findings of the trial court both on the question of sub-letting as well as building a suitable house by the tenant-defendant and in the result allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment from the premises in question. Consequently, the defendant has come in second appeal to this court.