Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1274 (RAJ)

Tara Chand Thro ’LR’s v. Tulsi Ram

2010-07-22

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998, passed by learned Civil judge (Senior Division) Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Magistrate has decreed the suit for eviction in favour of plaintiff-respondent, also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2008, passed by District Judge Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998, the defendant-appellant has filed this second appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant-defendant stating therein that a shop was let out to the defendant on a rent of Rs. 950/- per month from 1.1.1991. The plaintiff claimed that from September, 1991 the defendant has not paid any rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he required the shop in question for his sons, namely Mohan Lal, Om Prakash and Trilok, as they were unemployed. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant took the shop on rent for the purpose of photography. But the defendant is not doing any business in the shop. The defendant had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant is having a two storied house at some distance from the shop in question. The said house has certain shops therein. Instead of using these shops for himself, the defendant is renting them out. it is further claimed that four months back, a shop was vacated by a tenant, but the defendant again let-out the same to another tenant. Therefore, the plaintiff riled the suit for eviction of the shop, and for recovery of rent. 3. The defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. He denied the rent of the shop to be Rs. 950/-, and claimed it to be Rs. 350/- from 1985. He further claimed that he has paid the rent till November, 1993, but no receipt has been issued to him. He further claimed that in September, 1992 the electricity bill of Rs. 1650/- was paid by himself. He further claimed that the plaintiff wants to increase the rent, or to deposit the entire amount of electricity bill. When defendant refused to deposit the entire amount of the bill, the plaintiff did disconnect the electricity connection in the shop. He further claimed that in September, 1992 the electricity bill of Rs. 1650/- was paid by himself. He further claimed that the plaintiff wants to increase the rent, or to deposit the entire amount of electricity bill. When defendant refused to deposit the entire amount of the bill, the plaintiff did disconnect the electricity connection in the shop. He further claimed that on 16.11.1992 the defendant did photography in the ceremony of engagement of Trilok, son of plaintiff. But the plaintiff has not paid the amount Rs. 3000/- for the photographs. As such, the defendant is not a defaulter. He also claimed that the sons of plaintiff, namely, Mohan Lal and Trilok are engaged in the work of contract with the plaintiff himself, and the third son, Om Prakash, is engaged in agricultural work. As such the plaintiff is not in need of the shop. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed eight issues. The plaintiff examined himself and his three witnesses. The defendant examined only himself as a witness. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998, on the basis of personal need of plaintiff, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. it directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent from September, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 350/-. Further the defendant was directed to vacate the shop in question. 6. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred the first appeal before the first appellate Court. But the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, and has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. 7. Since no substantial question of law are involved in the second appeal, this second appeal cannot be entertained. However, during the course of arguments, this Court directed the defendant-appellant to specify a reasonable time, within which the appellant is willing to vacate the rented premises. The learned counsel for the appellant, after seeking due instruction from the appellant-defendant, states that the appellant-defendant is willing to vacate the rented premises within nine months. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is agreeable to the said proposal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, after seeking due instruction from the appellant-defendant, states that the appellant-defendant is willing to vacate the rented premises within nine months. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is agreeable to the said proposal. 8. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant-defendant to vacate and to hand over the possession of the rented premises to the respondent-plaintiff within nine months from today, i.e. 22.4.2011. 9. With the above observations, the second appeal, is hereby disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******