SOHAN LAL Vs. LAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge. Churu dated January 5, 1989 by which he determined the amount of Rs. 9,960/ - as rent at rate of Rs. 150/ - per month and interest Under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after to be called 'the Act'), the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Churu for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable bona fide necessity with the allegations, in short, that premises situated Rajwala Quan in Sardarshahar town has been purchased by the plaintiff through a registered sale -deed dated July 2, 1982 from their owners Sumermal, Anoopchand, Govind Ram, Mohan Lal, Chaturbhuj, Jaikaran and Smt. Kishni Devi. The stop existing in the aforesaid premises is in occupation and possession of the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. Despite several demands and registered notice, the defendants have not paid rent to the plaintiff since the date of the purchase of the premises by him. The defendants admit in their joint written -statement that they are in occupation and possession of the suit shop. 'The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. They have further averred that the suit shop was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 10/ - about 18 years ago from its owner Kishan Lal. He agreed to sell it to them for Rs. 4,000/ - and executed an agreement for sale in their favour after obtaining the full consideration of Rs. 4,000/ - Since then, they are in occupation and possession of the suit shop as its owners. It has further been averred that the relationship of land lord and tenant does not exist in between the parties, the suit is not maintainable, rent of more than 3 years is time -barred and a huge amount has been spent by the defendants in raising construction -in the suit shop.

(3.) THE same arguments have been reiterated by the learned consel for the parties in this Court. The learned Counsel for the defendant -appellants has relied upon Baidhya Nath v. Jyotishna Rani [1912 RCR 658 (Cal.)]. The The learned Counsel for the plaintiff -respondent relied upon Shri Ram Prasad Shah v. Jagannath [1976 SC 2335], Ganesh Narain v. Ranchhor Das [1978 RLW 388] and Jai Narayan v. Meena Devi [1978 WLN(UC) 473].