TILOK CHAND Vs. JEETMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's application under Sec. 114 read with Order XLVII, rule 1, C P. C. for a review of the judgment passed by this Court on the eviction matter in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 586/of 74, Tilok Chand vs. Jeetmal and others, on July 30, 1975.

(2.) JEETMAL and Jaiwantmal, the two plaintiffs, purchased a shop in dispute situated in Dargah Bazar, Ajmer along with other property from the previous landlords Chhabaldas and Railumal under the sale deed (Ex. 1) dated 27-10-67. The defendant-applicant, Tilokchand, was a tenant in the shop in dispute at Rs. 20/- p. m. The previous landlords Chhabaldas and Railumal informed the applicant about the sale in favour of the plaintiffs, and thus the applicant became the tenant of the venders by operation of law. The venders, i. e. , the plaintiffs, determined the tenancy of the applicant by a notice dated 19-6-68, and called upon the applicant to surrender vacant possession of the suit shop. When the applicant failed to comply with the demand of surrendering possession of the shop, the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent on three grounds, namely (1) that the defendant has not paid rent for more than six months; (2) that the defendant has sub-let the shop to one Shankerlal (defendant No. 2); and (3) that the plaintiffs require the suit shop reasonably and bona fide. The defendant-applicant resisted the suit, but no plea with regard to the defect of title of the plaintiffs in the suit shop was raised. A plea was also raised that he was the tenant of the Custodian Department The learned trial Court decreed the suit on all the three grounds. The applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajmer, who reversed the finding of the learned trial Court that there was sub-letting by the applicant (defendant) in favour of Shankerlal. but upheld the finding on other two grounds, and consequently decreed for eviction was also upheld. A second appeal was filed in this Court, which was dismissed on July 30, 1975 by the learned Single Judge, and the findings of the first appellate court as well as of the trial court on the two grounds, on which the suit was decreed for ejectment, were affirmed. The present review petition was filed in this court on 27. 8. 75.

(3.) IN the result, I do not find any force in the review petition, and the same is dismissed with costs.