MOHAN LAL Vs. SAJJAN MAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bali dated Oct. 12, 1987 by which the plaintiff-respondent's suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & ejectment has been decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Sajjan Mal filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & ejectment against the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting, material alteration and default in payment of arrears of rent. It has also been averred in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 - respondent Omprakash gave his surety for the payment of rent & his tenancy was duly terminated by means of a notice. The defendants filed their written statements traversing almost all the allegations of the plaint. Twenty issues were framed. The amount of rent & interest was determined, it was not paid & accordingly, the defence was struck out. The plaintiff examined himself and his witness Nemichand P.W. 2 and closed his evidence keeping the right of rebuttal reserved. March 6, 1987 was fixed for the defendants' evidence. For one reason or the other no witness was produced and examined by the defendants and their evidence was lastly closed on July 31, 1987. A revision was filed by the defendant-appellant against this order. It was partly allowed and it was ordered by this Court on Sept. 15. 1987 that if the defendant-appellant Mohanlal pays Rs. 250.00 as cost and produces all his witnesses on Oct. 12, 1987, their statements would be recorded. On Oct. 12, 1987, no witness was present and an application for the adjournment was moved by the learned counsel for the defendant-Mohanlal. The trial court did not grant any adjournment and decreed the suit the same day by its judgment under appeal.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned trial court has very rigidly interpreted the order of this Court dated Sept. 15, 1989, it was never the intention of this Court that the evidence of the defendants would not be taken and the judgment would be pronounced even if the defendant was admitted in the hospital. He contended that the defendant could not examine himself and produce his witnesses on Oct. 12, 1987 due to his illness & admission in the hospital. He also contended that it is not proved from the evidence on record that the plaintiff was the landlord of the defendant and he had a right to give the notice of ejectment & to file the suit for the same. He lastly contended that subletting, default and material alteration are not proved and the trial court has seriously erred to decree the suit for ejectment.