RAJA RAM Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and eviction of the defendants from the premises described in the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case in brief was that the purchased the suit premises from the heirs of Shri Sawakshaw merchant. THE eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting and reasonable and bonafide personal requirement. THE defendants contested the suit and took an objection inter alia that the plaintiff had not acquired the title as a landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the defendant No. 1 is a tenant of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 46. 75 p. p. m. in the shop in suit? 2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 is a permanent tenancy and he can not be evicted from the house in suit? 3. Whether the heirs of the deceased Shri Sawakshaw Rustomji sold the house to the plaintiff without obtaining a succession certificate and as such the plaintiff does not become the landlord of the defendant No. 1 by virtue of that sale? 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent from 13. 10. 69 and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rents claimed in the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant on the grounds mentioned in para 8 of the plaint and para 16 of the replication? 6. Whether the month of tenancy of the defendant No. 1 starts from the 1st of every month and ends with the last day of that month? 7. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? After recording the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred an appeal. THE learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and made the following observations: - "my conclusion, therefore, is (1) that Ex. 9 has not been executed before and authenticated by the authority named in section 33 (1) (A) Registration Act and (2) that Kaiki was not authorised by Ex. 9 and Ex. 10 to execute the sale deed Ex. 1 on behalf of Jimmy and Dinoo, he was only authorised to admit execution on behalf of Dinoo and Jimmy. Admission of execution does not include the execution of the document. " THE plaintiff has thus, come in second appeal to his Court.