KRISHAN CHAND KAPUR Vs. KISHANCHAND MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff Krishan chand Kapur is that a house known as Krishan Bhawan situated at Babu Mohalla, Kaisarganj in the city of Ajmer belongs to them. There are several blocks in this house and the whole of block No. 5 was rented out to defendant No. 1 Kishanchand Mehra on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/ -. The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment on August 31, 1961 against the defendant No. 1 in the court of Munsif, Ajmer City which resulted in a compromise and the defendant No. 1 agreed to enhance the monthly rent from Rs. 27/ -to Rs. 38/ -, It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 kept defendant No. 2 as a subtenant in a part of block No. 1 and used to realise rent at the rate of Rs. 19/ -, per month from him. The portion occupied by defendant No. 2 as sub -tenant consisted of three rooms and a Kitchen on the ground floor. The plaintiff's case is that when defendant No. 1 left Ajmer on his transfer to Beawar, he vacated a portion of block No. 1 which was in his actual occupation and delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff on August 26, 1964 and also paid the rent upto the end of August 1964. But as regards the portion occupied by defendant No. 2 as a sub -tenant, the plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 brought the defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 agreed to pay Rs. 19/ - as rent per month for the apartments occupied by him with effect from Sept 1964. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant No. 2 did not pay rent thereafter and caused substantial damage to the property by removing a partition wall of a room and 'Verandah'. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit on December 10, 1964 in the Court of Munsif City, Ajmer (West) against the defendant No. 1 Kishanchand Mehra and defendant No. 2 Shri B. N. Diwali praying that a decree may be passed against the defendant No. 2 for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 57/ - as rent for three months from. Sept. to November 1964; for mesne profits from December 1964 when the tenancy is said to have been terminated by the plaintiff by a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act to the date of the suit. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 195,on account of damages and prayed that the defendant No. 2 may be made liable to pay future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 19/ -per month till delivery of vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial court framed as many as 15 issues and found that the plaintiff had been admitted as a sub -tenant by the defendant No. 1. He also held that the alleged direct tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 had not been established. The learned Munsiff also found that the evidence produced by the defendant disclosed that the defendant No.2 had entered into possession of the premises in question with the permission of Smt. Dhanno Devi in February 1966. The learned Munsif however refrained from giving any finding on the question whether the defendant No. 2 had succeeded in proving his ownership to the premises in question by adverse possession. In the result he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.