SOHAN LAL Vs. DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff landlord filed a suit for possession alleging that the defendants were trespassers. THE trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the defendant that the defendant was a tenant, decreed the suit holding that the defendants have committed defaults in payment of rent. This judgment was reversed by the first appellate court so far as it relates to the ejectment. THE first appellate court has held that the suit was not filed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 nor any of the grounds mentioned therein under Section 13 of the Act was alleged in the plaint. In view of this, because Section 13 of the Act provides various remedies, to the defendant-tenant to ward-off against the ejectment, even if the suit has been filed and default has been committed; therefore, the suit for ejectment could not have been decreed in the absence of the pleadings merely because the defendant alleges, that he was a tenant. THE decree for rent was maintained and upheld by the first appellate court-

(3.) I am, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the first appellate court, dismissing the suit for ejectment but decreeing the suit for rent calls for no interference. The appeal therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. .