Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1259 (RAJ)

Rakesh Garg v. Mahaveer Singh Gehlot

2005-04-28

N.P.GUPTA

body2005
Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. Both the learned Courts below have dismissed the petitioners objection petition filed under Order 21 Rule 99, holding that the appellant has failed to prove story, about his having been inducted as tenant in the suit premises since 01.04.1997. 3. It is not in dispute, that the evection suit was decreed after full contest right upto Honble the Supreme Court, and finally the proceedings terminated from Honble the Supreme Court on 09.05.1997. 4. In these circumstances, when the persons, who, even according to the appellant, were the partners in the firm with him, were the defendants in the litigation, and according to the sequence of events, given out by the appellant, the partners went on changing one after another, and finally the appellant became the sole proprietor, in my view, the learned Courts below were right in not believing the story, as propounded by the appellant about his having been inducted as tenant, by the land lord. On the face of it, it does not stand to reason, that when the plaintiff has obtained a decree for eviction after such a contest, he would induct the person i.e. the appellant, who was said to be the sub-tenant, at a point of time when the matter was ripe for hearing before Honble the Supreme Court, as a fresh tenant, and that too, without taking any amount from him and for the first time, the appellant would deposit the rent, practically after six months, in the bank account of the land lord. In the ordinary course of events, if the appellant was inducted as a fresh tenant, obviously the relations between the parties are required to be assured to be cordial, and the rent must have been paid by the appellant, and must have been received by the land lord, and there could be no occasion, for the appellant feeling compelled, to deposit the rent in plaintiff s bank account only, and that too, after the rent piled up for about six months. 5. The learned lower Appellate Court has noticed, that in the execution proceedings, it was on 13.05.1997, that the present appellant had given out, that he has deposited the amount of cost of Rs.1,666.75/-in the plaintiff s bank account, and wanted time to deposit the arrears of rent. 5. The learned lower Appellate Court has noticed, that in the execution proceedings, it was on 13.05.1997, that the present appellant had given out, that he has deposited the amount of cost of Rs.1,666.75/-in the plaintiff s bank account, and wanted time to deposit the arrears of rent. Significantly, even by then, which was a date, much later than, not only the commencement of now tenancy, but even later than expiry of about one month thereof , it was never given out, that he is a new tenant, and the execution need not proceed. Considering the totality of circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned lower Courts below, being pure finding of fact, in my view are not vitiated on any of the grounds available under Section 100 CPC. 6. It was next contended, that the learned lower Appellate Court was in error in imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/-on the appellant, on the face of language of Section 35-A CPC. A perusal of the impugned Judgment shows, that for imposing the cost, the learned lower Appellate Court has relied upon couple of Judgment s of this Court, and therefore, considering the over all conduct of the appellant, I am not inclined to interfere in the imposition of cost either. 7. The appeal thus has no force, and does not involve any substantial question of law either, and is therefore dismissed summarily.