Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 777 (RAJ)

Tekchand v. Khemchand

2015-04-07

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The present first appeal has been filed by the defendant- Tekchand S/o Gulab Roy, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in this Court on 11.01.2005, aggrieved by the decree of possession, ejectment in respect of suit Shop No.2 (measuring 8' x 10') sitauted at Sri Ganganagar, which was initially let out by Smt. Surati Devi, wife of plaintiff/respondent Khem Chand, on 23.05.1985 to one Kuldeepchand S/o Tekchand. The said Kuldeepchand, pre-deceased his father, Tekchand on 11.05.1993, whereas the defendant, Tekchand, expired on 23.05.2009 during the pendency of the present first appeal and his legal heirs were taken on record, whereas the wife of pre-deceased Kuldeepchand, Saroj Bala is said to have remarried and was not at good terms with defendant Tekchand. 2. The present first appeal has a background litigation also in the form of an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff, Khemchand, viz. Civil Suit No.42/1994 against LR's of Kuldeepchand, namely, Saroj Bala and her minor daughter, Ms. Priyanka, in which the present defendant-Tekchand, was also impleaded as party-defendant on his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as guardian of Ms. Priyanka, but the appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in Appeal No.72/1997- Khemchand Vs. Saroj Bala W/o Kuldeepchand and others, remanded the matter back to trial court for deciding the question of relationship of Tekchand, father of original tenant, Kuldeep, as to whether he was tenant of plaintiff Khemchand or not in the suit shop but upon remand vide order dated 27.07.1992, before the said issue could be decided by the trial ourt the Suit No.42/1994 itself was withdrawn by the plaintiff, Khemchand on 05.07.1999, without seeking any liberty of the trial court to institute any fresh suit. Thereafter, the present Suit No.57/2004- Kham Chand (D) through LRs Vs. Thereafter, the present Suit No.57/2004- Kham Chand (D) through LRs Vs. Tekchand, was filed against the defendant Tekchand, for seeking his ejectment from the suit shop in question and the plaintiff Khemchand came to the Court in the present Suit No.57/2004 with the case that defendant Tekchand had forcibly taken possession of the suit shop in question as trespasser by breaking open the locks after it had remained closed for three years on account of his dispute with his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saroj Bala, widow of his pre-deceased son Kuldeepchand, who was the original tenant and even proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., were filed by the father-in-law, Tekchand (defendant herein) against his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saroj Bala, and thus the present suit was filed. 3. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents came to be decreed by the learned trial court of District Judge-Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar, vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2004 in favour of plaintiffs, against which the present first appeal has been preferred by the defendant, Tekchand, who is now represented by his legal representatives, Smt. Laxmi Devi, Rajendra etc. 4. 4. 4. Before coming to the arguments of the learned counsels, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2015 for ready reference: - ^^6- bl rudh dk fl)h Hkkj oknh ij gS ftlesa oknh dks eq[; :i ls ;g lkfcr djuk gS fd izfroknh oknxzLr nqdku ij vfrØeh gS tcfd fojks/k esa izfroknh Lo;a dks dkuwuh fdjk,nkj lkfcr djuk pkgrk gS blfy, bl fook|d esa eq[; fookn fcUnq ;gh jgsxk fd D;k izfroknh] tks dqynhipUn dk firk gS] mls vfrØeh ekuk tk, vFkok dkuwuh fdjk;snkj\ bl rudh dks fl) djus ds fy, oknh ih-M+- 1 [ksepUn us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd nqdku ua- 2 dqynhipUn dks fdjk, ij nh FkhA ;g nqdku 15 lky igys fdjk, ij nh Fkh mldh ckcr fdjk;kukek fy[kk FkkA fdjk;kukek izn’kZ ih-2 gS ftldh izfr izn’kZ ih-2 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS dqynhipUn us bl fdjk;kukek ij gLrk{kj fd, Fks tks eSuas djok, FksA ;g nqdku esjs [;ky ls lky nks lky ds fy, fdjk, ij nh FkhA dqynhipan dks ejs ik¡p N% lky gks x,A dqynhipUn ds ejus ds ckn mldh iRuh ljkstckyk us bl nqdku ij dCtk dj fy;k fQj nqdku rhu pkj lky cUn iM+h jgh mlds ckn mlds firk Vsdpan us rkys rksM+dj dCtk dj fy;kA eSusa dHkh VsdpUn dks fdjk, ij nqdku ugha nhA VsdpUn dk bl nqdku ij uktk;t dCtk gSA VsdpUn vjksM+ oa’k efUnj esa Hkkjr lkM+h LVksj ds uke ls dkjksckj djrk FkkA dqynhi pUn ds lkFk cSBdj izfroknh us dksbZ dke ugh fd;kA dqynhipan vius firk ls vyx jgrk Fkk vkSj viuk vyx gh dkjksckj djrk FkkA ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ ih-2 ij eSus xokg ds :i esa gLrk{kj fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ ih-2 ij eSusa xokg ds :i esa gLrk{kj fd, FksA ;g lgh fd fdjk;kukek esa edku dh ekfyd lqjrh nsoh fy[kk gS ysfdu bl nqdku dh ekfyd ge nksauks gSA dqynhipan dkSu ls edku esa jgrk Fkk eq>s irk ughaA eS o esjh iRuh bl nqdku esa cjkcj ds ekfyd gSA Vsdpan dkSu ls edku esa jgrk gS eq>s irk ughA Vsdpan us <kbZ rhu lky igys dCtk fd;k FkkA lky eghuk eSusa ugh crk ldrkA esjk fdjk;k ysus dk [kkrk dkSu ls cSad es gS vkt /;ku ughA eS ml [kkrs es :i;k esa jgrk Fkk eq>s irk ughaA eS o esjh iRuh bl nqdku esa cjkcj ds ekfyd gSA Vsdpan dkSu ls edku esa jgrk gS eq>s irk ughA Vsdpan us <kbZ rhu lky igys dCtk fd;k FkkA lky eghuk eSusa ugh crk ldrkA esjk fdjk;k ysus dk [kkrk dkSu ls cSad es gS vkt /;ku ughA eS ml [kkrs es :i;k tek Hkh djokrk gwa vkSj mBkrk Hkh gwWA fQj dgk esjk [kkrk lS.Vªy cSda es gSA eSus ljkst ckyk oxSjk ij bl nqdku dks [kkyh djkus dk eqdnek fd;k FkkA blesa Vsdpan us vius vki dks fdjk,nkj crk dj dk;Zokgh gh gksxh irk ughA ;g lgh gS fd ml U;k;ky; esa Vsdpan dks fdjk,nkj eku fy;k Fkk bl eqdnesa esa fdjk, dk fu/kkZj.k gqvk Fkk og esjs [kkrk es tek gqvk Fkk vkSj fdjk, ds lkFk C;kt Hkh tek gqvk Fkk oks :i;k eSusa cSad ls ys fy;k og :i;k Vsdpan us gh tek djok;k Fkk mls D;k irkA ;g lgh gS fd tks nkok mlus ljkstckyk ds uke ls fd;k Fkk mlesa Vsdpan Hkh ikVhZ cuk Fkk og nkok mlus ckn esa okfil ys fy;kA mls irk ugh fd Vsdpan o dqynhipan dk caVokjk ukek gqvk Fkk ;k ugh exj ;s vyx vyx jgrs FksA Vsdpan }kjk rkys rksM+dj nqdku ij dCTkk djus dh f’kdk;r ugh dhA ;g nkok fd;k gSA esjh [kqn dh diM+s dh nqdku gS tks 9 ifCyd ikdZ es fLFkr gSA ;g xyr gS fd dqynhipan us esjs gd esa fdjk;kukek fy[kdj ugha fn;k gksA Vsdpan dkSu lh nqdku esa dke djrk Fkk eq>s nqdku dk uEcj ;kn ugha gSA Vsdpan vius yM+ds ls nqdku ij feyus vkrk Fkk eq>s irk ughA ;g xyr gS fd Vsdpan bl nqdku ij 8&10 lky ls dk;Z dj jgk gS og rks vc nks rhu lky ls gh bl ij dke dj jgk gSA ;g xyr gS fd Vsdpan dqynhipan o mldh ekrk dh lka>k ifjokj gksA dqynhipan vyx jgrk gSA dqynhipan dh nqdku esa fdruk :i;k yxk gS mls irk ugh ysfdu :i;k dqynhipan us yxk;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dqynhipan tks O;kikj djrk gS blds ifjokj dk la;qDr O;kikj gksA ;g xyr gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds i’pkr Vsdpan bl ij dkfct gksdj yxkrkj O;kikj dj jgk gksA ljkst ckyk us nqdku ijrkys yxk fn, Fks vkSj Vsdpan us tks U;k;ky; fdjk;k esa tek djk;k x;k tks U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ls cSad es ;g dguk xyr gS fd dqynhipan tks O;kikj djrk gS blds ifjokj dk la;qDr O;kikj gksA ;g xyr gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds i’pkr Vsdpan bl ij dkfct gksdj yxkrkj O;kikj dj jgk gksA ljkst ckyk us nqdku ijrkys yxk fn, Fks vkSj Vsdpan us tks U;k;ky; fdjk;k esa tek djk;k x;k tks U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ls cSad es tek gqvk og Vsdpan us tek djok;k ;k fdlus tek djok;k eq>s irk ughA ;g xyr gS fd VsdpUn bl nqdku esa la;qDr ifjokj dk O;kikj djrk gksA ;g xyr gS fd mls nkok djus dk gd u gks vkSj lqjrh nsoh bl nqdku dh ekfyd gksA blh Øe es rjnhnh ‘kgknr ds :i es ih-M- 2 ujs’k dqekj us Hkh bUgh rF;ksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, viuk ‘kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA rFkk ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gd dqynhipUn ‘kk;n nqxkZ fogkj esa jgrk FkkA dqynhipUn dh fdjk,nkjh lekIr ugha dh FkhA [ksepUn us bl nqdku dks [kkyh djokus ds fy, tks eqdnek ljkst ckyk ij fd;k Fkk futh t:jr dk fcUnq ‘kkfey gks rks ekywe ughA ;g nkok dqynhipUn dh e`R;q ds ckn fd;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd bl edku esa Vsdpan Hkh ifjokj ds lnL; ds :i esa O;kikj djrk gksA eq>s irk ugha fd nqdku dk ykblsal Vsdpan o dqynhipan nksuks ds uke ls gksA [ksepan us tks nkok fd;k mlesa [ksepan gkj x;k FkkA vihy esa ge thr x, FksA ;g lgh gS fd eqdnek tks [kkfjt gqvk mlesa VsdpUn dks fdjk,nkj eku fy;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku esa dqynhipUn o Vsdpan ,d lkFk O;kikj djrs gksA ;g xyr gS fd eSusa Hkh Vsdpan ls fdjk;k izkIr fd;k gksA ;g xyr gS fd fdjk;k Vsdpan ls gh [ksepan ysrs gksA 7- bu rudh ds laca/k esa izfroknh Vsdpan us ‘kiFk i= ij ;g dFku fd;k fd dqynhipan dh fdjk,nkjh lekIr ugha dh xbZ izfroknh ‘kq: ls gh viuk ifjokj dk dk;Z diM+s dh nqdku dqynhipan ds lkFk djrk Fkk dqynhipan dh e`R;q gks pqdh gSA izfroknh ,oa dqynhipan dk ;g iwjs ifjokj dk gh dk;Z FkkA izfroknh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd mlus fdlh izdkj dk dCtk ugh fd;kA mlus vDVwcj 99 rd dk fdjk;k vnk dj fn;k gS ftls oknh us izkIr Hkh dj fy;k gS blfy, vc og fdjk,nkj ekuus ls badkj ugh dj ldrkA izfroknh us ;g Hkh ‘kiFk ij dFku fd;k fd dqynhipan tks ;g iwjs ifjokj dk gh dk;Z FkkA izfroknh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd mlus fdlh izdkj dk dCtk ugh fd;kA mlus vDVwcj 99 rd dk fdjk;k vnk dj fn;k gS ftls oknh us izkIr Hkh dj fy;k gS blfy, vc og fdjk,nkj ekuus ls badkj ugh dj ldrkA izfroknh us ;g Hkh ‘kiFk ij dFku fd;k fd dqynhipan tks dkjksckj djrk Fkk og izfroknh dk O;kikj Fkk mlus gh vius iq= dks nqdku ij fCkBk;k Fkk o Loa; Hkh nqdku ij dke djrk Fkk vkSj vc Hkh yxkrkj djrk vk jgk gSA izfroknh us vius iq= dks ftEEksnkj cukus ds fy, fdjk,nkjh mlds uke ls dh FkhA bl izdkj izfroknh us Lo;a ds dCts ds fo”k; es crkrs gq, bl rF; dks badkj fd;k fd mlus vukf/kd`r dCtk fd;k gksA ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k fd dqynhipan cM+k yM+dk Fkk og diM+s dk dke esjs lkFk djrk FkkA vjksM+k oa’k efUnj esa esjs firk th diM+s dh nqdku gS esjs firkth thfor ugha gS mudks ejs gq, 14&15 lky gk x,A muds ejus ds ckn ge nqdku ij rhu HkkbZ dke djrs Fks vc Hkh ge mlh nqdku esa dke dj jgs gSA vjksM+k oa’k okyh nqdku ij esjk yM+dk lqjsUnz cSBrk gS og nks pkj lky ls cSBus yxk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ‘kknh ds ckn dqynhipan us vyx nqdku dh gksA dqynhipan ds lkFk esjh Hkkxhnkjh Fkh] D;ksafd eSa cSBrk Fkk Hkkxhnkjh dh dksbZ fy[kri<+r ugha gqbZ FkhA Ckfg;kr j[krs FksA cfg;kr esa uQk uqdlku o caVokjs dk bUnzkt ugh fd;kA ;g xyr gS fd bl nqdku ls dksbZ laca/k ugha Fkk ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSusa dqynhipan ds lkFk bl nqdku ij dHkh ugh cSBkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dqynhipan esjs ls vyx gksdj nqxkZ dkyksuh es edku ysdj jgrk gksA og esjs lkFk jgrk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd nqdku ij dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds ckn mldh iRuh ljkst us vius rkys yxk fn, gksA ;g xyr gS fd ;g nqdku mlds ckn nks lky can iM+h jgh gks ;g xyr gS fd mlds ckn geus tcjnLrh rkys rksM+dj dCtk dj fy;k gksA esjs csVs dh cgw vius ihgj ls [ksepan ds fl[kkus ls nqdku ij vk tkrh Fkh blfy, 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh gqbZ FkhA 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh geus gekjh iq=o/kq ds fo:) dh FkhA ;gh lgh gS fd dqynhipan dh cfg;ka xyr gS fd mlds ckn geus tcjnLrh rkys rksM+dj dCtk dj fy;k gksA esjs csVs dh cgw vius ihgj ls [ksepan ds fl[kkus ls nqdku ij vk tkrh Fkh blfy, 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh gqbZ FkhA 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh geus gekjh iq=o/kq ds fo:) dh FkhA ;gh lgh gS fd dqynhipan dh cfg;ka vHkh Hkh esjs ikl gSA mu cfg;ksa esa esjs o dqynhipan dk uQk uqdlku vyx vyx ntZ ugh gSA ;g xyr gS fd dqynhipan thfor Fkk rc rd vdsyk bl nqdku esa O;kikj djrk gks vkSj eSa ,d Hkh fnu uk cSBk gksÅaA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds ckn eSusa nqdku ij tcjnLrh dCtk dj fy;k gksA 8- bl izdkj mHk;i{kksa dh lk{; ij foospu fd;k tk, rks tks rF; mHkjdj lkeus vkrk gS og ;g gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku izn’kZ ih-2 ds tfj, dqynhipan us ,d lky ds fy, fdjk, ij ,d gtkj :i;s ekgokj dh nj ls 1-4-85 ls fdjk, ij yh ;g Hkh rF; fufookZn gS fd fdjk,nkjh ml ,d lky ds ckn Hkh dk;e jghA dqynhipan dh e`R;q gks xbZA ;g Hkh fufookZn gS fd izfroknh dqynhipan dk firk gSA blds vykok dqynhipan dh iRuh ljkstckyk] iq=h fiz;adk gS rFkk dqynhipan dh ekrk Hkh ftank gS ftls okn esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh fufookZn gS fd iwoZ esa oknh us ljkstckyk o fiz;adk ds fo:) csn[kyh dk okn jktLFkku ifjokj vf/kfu;e ds rgr fd;k ftlesa Vsdpan Hkh i{kdkj cukA Vsdpan dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fdjk,nkj eku fy;k exj vihyh; U;k;ky; us bl fCkUnq dks iqu% fu/kkZfjr djus ds funsZ’k fn, vkSj ;g okn oknh us mBk fy;kA blds ckn ;g okn izLrqr fd;kA Vsdpan dqynhipan dk firk gksus ls fgUnq mŸkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 1956 ds rgr f}rh; oxZ dk mŸkjkf/kdkjh gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk Hkh mi;qDr jgsxk fd mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj dqynhipan ds izFke oxZ ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh mldh iq=h] fo/kok o ekrk Hkh ftUnk gSaA ;gka ;g fy[k nsuk Hkh mi;Dr jgsxk fd bl izdj.k esa mHk;i{kks us iwoZ esa oknh us tks ljkstckyk vkfn ds fo:) okn fd;k Fkk mlds laca/k es dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugh dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj bl izdj.k esa egRoiw.kZ fopkj.kh; rF; ;g jgsxk fd dqynhipan fdjk,nkj dh e`R;q ds i’pkr vc mlds firk izfroknh tks bl nqdku ij dkfct gS D;k mudk dCtk OkS/k gS rFkk os dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ekus iwoZ esa oknh us tks ljkstckyk vkfn ds fo:) okn fd;k Fkk mlds laca/k es dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugh dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj bl izdj.k esa egRoiw.kZ fopkj.kh; rF; ;g jgsxk fd dqynhipan fdjk,nkj dh e`R;q ds i’pkr vc mlds firk izfroknh tks bl nqdku ij dkfct gS D;k mudk dCtk OkS/k gS rFkk os dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ekus tk ldrs gS vFkok mUgs vfrØeh ekuk tk,\ 9- bl fcUnq ij foospu djus ds iwoZ jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e 1950 dh /kkjk 3¼7½ esa tks ifjHkk”kk fdjk,nkj dh nh xbZ gS mlds izfr tkx:d jguk mi;qDr jgsxk ftlds Hkkx ¼[k½ esa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd fdjk,nkj dh e`R;q gks tkus dh n’kk esa ml ij ykxw Loh; fof/k ds vuqlkj mldh mŸkjthoh iq=h] iq= iq=h] vkSj vU; okfjl tks okf.kfT;d ;k dkjksckjh iz;kstu ds fy, iÍs ij fn, ifjlj esa lkekU;r% mlds lkFk ,sls ifjlj esa mldh e`R;q rd dqVqEc ds lnL; ds :i esa O;kikj djrs Fks] dks Hkh fdjk,nkj ekuk x;k gSA bl laca/k esa mHk; i{kks us tks fofu.kZ; izLrqr fd, mudk mYys[k djuk Hkh mi;qDr jgsxkA 10- odhy oknh us bl laca/k esa loZizFke ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd fdlh ifjlj dk fdjk;k vnk djus ek= ls vFkok ifjlj dk fdjk;k ekfyd }kjk Lohdkj djs ysus ek= ls fdjk;k lank; djus oknh fdjk,nkj ugh ekuk tk ldrk D;ksafd fof/k dh n`f”V esa fdjk,nkj ogh gksrk gS ftls fof/k dh n`f”V esa fdjk,nkj ekuk tk lds tcfd fdjk;k rks fdjk,nkj dh vksj ls mldk dkjksckjh ,ts.V ;k lac/kh Hkh vnk dj ldrk gS rFkk edku ekfyd Hkh fdjk, dh lEifŸk dk pwafd fdjk,nkj mi;ksx miHkksx dj jgk gS blhfy, fdjk;k Lohdkj dj ldrk gS ysfdu ftl O;fDr ls edku ekfyd fdjk;k Lohdkj djrk gS og O;fDRk edku ekfyd ds fdjk;k Lohdkj djus ek= ls gh fdjk,nkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl rdZ dk iq”V djus ds fy, oknh ds vf/koDrk us mPpre U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; g”kZo/ku pkSdkuh cuke HkwisUnz ,u iVsy 2002 ¼1½ vkj-lh-vkj 349 izLrqr fd;kA oknh ds odhy us fdjk,nkj dh ifjHkk”kk dks lkfcr djus ds fy, jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZihB dk fofu.kZ; Jhefr jkethouh cuke Jhefr ukjkrh ckbZ 1989 ¼2½ vkj-,y-vkj- ist 309 ¾ 1993 ¼1½ vkj-lh-vkj- ist 85 izLrqr fd;k ftlesa jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fdjk,nkj dh ifjHkk”kk dks LFkkfir djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k fd fdjk,nkj dh e`R;q gks tkus ds ckn mlds mŸkjthoh iRuh fdjk,nkj dh ifjHkk”kk dks lkfcr djus ds fy, jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZihB dk fofu.kZ; Jhefr jkethouh cuke Jhefr ukjkrh ckbZ 1989 ¼2½ vkj-,y-vkj- ist 309 ¾ 1993 ¼1½ vkj-lh-vkj- ist 85 izLrqr fd;k ftlesa jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fdjk,nkj dh ifjHkk”kk dks LFkkfir djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k fd fdjk,nkj dh e`R;q gks tkus ds ckn mlds mŸkjthoh iRuh iq= rFkk i=h pkgs e`Ÿkd fdjk,nkj ds lkFk O;kikj dj jgs Fks vFkok ugh os dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ekus tk;saxs rFkk vU; mŸkjkf/kdkjh ;fn e`Ÿkd fdjk,nkj ds lkFk dqVqEc ds lnL; ds :i esa lkekU;r% dkjksckj dj jgs Fks rks mUgsa Hkh dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ekuk tk;sxkA oknh ds odhy us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd e`Ÿkd fdjk,nkj ds thou dky esa gh ;fn mŸkjthoh iRuh@ifr] iq=h ;k iq= ds vykok dksbZ vU; mŸkjkf/kdkjh ml ifjlj esa O;kikj djus yx x;k rks mls dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ugh ekuk tk;sXkkA bl laca/k esa oknh ds vf/koDrk us jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; fpeuyky cuke ujsUnz dqekj 1996 ¼1½ vkj lh vkj ist 24 izLrqr fd;kA 11- blds foijhr izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us ;g rdZ IkzLrqr fd;k fd fdjk,nkj ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ds :i esa fdjk,nkj dk ykHk ikus o vf/kfu;e ds rgr lqj{kk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdjk,nkj dk rF; Hkh mUgsa mŸkjkf/kdkj esa izkIr gksrk gS bl laca/k esa izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; Jhefr Kku nsoh] vkuUn cuke thou dqekj o vU; , vkbZ vkj 1985 ,l lh lh ist 796 izLrqr fd;kA izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd fdjk,nkj ds thoudky esa ifjokj ds lnL; ds :i esa O;kikj esa Hkkx ys jgs fdjk,nkj ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh dks vfrpkjh ugha ekuk tk ldrk rFkk bl rdZ ds laca/k esa izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; xksihfd’ku cuke ctjaxyky 1996 vkj ,y MCY;w ¼jkt-½ ist 690 izLrqr fd;kA izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd e`Ÿkd fdjk,nkj ds lkFk O;olk; djus okys ifjokj ds lnL; Hkh la;qDr fdjk,nkj ekus tk;saxsA bl laca/k esa izfrokn ds vf/koDr us jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; dslj nsoh cuke f’kojRu 1999 ¼2½ vkj ,y MCY;w ¼jkt-½ ist 1111 izLrqr fd;kA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd dqynhipUn ;fn vius thoudky esa vius ekrk ;k HkkbZ dh iRuh dks Hkh nqdku ns nsrk rks og vUrj.k voS/k ugh gksrk D;ksfd ekrk o HkkbZ dh iRuh Hkh mlds jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; dslj nsoh cuke f’kojRu 1999 ¼2½ vkj ,y MCY;w ¼jkt-½ ist 1111 izLrqr fd;kA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd dqynhipUn ;fn vius thoudky esa vius ekrk ;k HkkbZ dh iRuh dks Hkh nqdku ns nsrk rks og vUrj.k voS/k ugh gksrk D;ksfd ekrk o HkkbZ dh iRuh Hkh mlds mŸkjkf/kdkjh gksrs blfy, Hkkoh mŸkjkf/kdkjh ds dCts esa ;fn edku ;k nqdku gS rks mls voS/kkfud ugh ekuk tk ldrkA bl rdZ dks iq”V djus ds fy, izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us jkTkLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; gjnso cuke t;nso tfj, mŸkjkf/kdkjh 2000 ¼1½vkj ,y MCY;w ¼jkt-½ ist 407 izLrqr fd;kA blds vykok lkekU; flfoy fof/k ds fl)kUr dks LFkkfir djrs gq, oknh ds odhy us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd oknh ;fn dksbZ dFku eq[; ijh{k.k es djrk gS rFkk ml rF; ds laca/k esa izfroknh dh vksj ls dksbZ ftjg ugh dh tkrh gS rks U;k;ky; dks ;g fu”d”kZ fudkyuk pkfg, fd izfroknh us okn rF;ksa dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA bl fl)kUr ij izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us Hkh vius lgefr izdV dh rFkk vius rdZ dks iq”V djus ds fy, oknh ds vf/koDrk us dydŸkk mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu.kZ; VªsM+lZ flMhadsV cuke Hkkjr la?k , vkbZ vkj 1983 dydŸkk ist 337 izLrqr fd;kA 12- vc ;fn i=koyh esa miyC/k rF;ksa o lk{; ij fopkj fd;k tk, rks ;gh rF; izdV gksrs gS fd dqynhipan us e`R;q ds iwoZ fooknxzLr ifjlj tks oknh dh iRuh ls fdjk, ij fy;k mlesa mlus ;g mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd og ;g nqdku futh dkjksckj ds fy, ns jgk gS blesa dksbZ fgLlsnkj ugh feykÅ¡xk fdlh Hkh ‘krZ ds f[kykQ othZ djus ij fedj csn[kyh dk Hkkxhnkj gksxkA ;kfu fd dqynhipan us ;g nqdku vius futh O;kikj ds fy, oknh ls fdjk, ij yhA bldh e`R;q ds i’pkr oknxzLr lEifŸk dqynhipan ds izFke oxZ ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh mldh fo/kok ekrk o iq=h us O;kikj ‘kq: ugha fd;k mlds LFkku ij mlds firk us oknxzLr ifjlj esa O;kikj djuk ‘kq: dj fn;kA fgUnq mŸkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 1956 es] tks fd izfroknh ds Loh; fof/k gS] ds vuqlkj tc izFke oxZ ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh dk dksbZ fof/kd vfLRkRo ugha gksrkA bl laca/k esa fgUnq mŸkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 8 ij fopkj dj ysuk mi;qDr jgsxk ftlesa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd fuoZlh;r ejus okys fgUnq iq:”k dh lEifŸk izFker% vuqlwph ds oxZ izFke esa of.kZr lEcfU/k;ksa esa U;k;xr vf/kfu;e 1956 es] tks fd izfroknh ds Loh; fof/k gS] ds vuqlkj tc izFke oxZ ds mŸkjkf/kdkjh dk dksbZ fof/kd vfLRkRo ugha gksrkA bl laca/k esa fgUnq mŸkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 8 ij fopkj dj ysuk mi;qDr jgsxk ftlesa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd fuoZlh;r ejus okys fgUnq iq:”k dh lEifŸk izFker% vuqlwph ds oxZ izFke esa of.kZr lEcfU/k;ksa esa U;k;xr gksxhA ;fn izFke oxZ ds okfjl u gks rks f}rh; oxZ esa fofufn”V lac/kh ftu esa izFke firk gS] esa lEifŸk U;kxr gksxhA nqdku esa fdjk,nkjh dk vf/kdkj ;|fi ,d lEifŸk ekuk x;k gS rFkk mldk U;kxr gks ldrk gS ysfdu pqafd izFke oxZ ds okfjl oknh ds ekStwn gS blfy, muds ekStwn jgrs firk dk mŸkjkf/kdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA blfy, firk jktLFkku ifjlj vf/kfu;e 1950 dh /kkjk 3¼7½¼[k½ ds vuq:i mŸkjkf/kdkjh ugh ekuk tk ldrkA 13- vc ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k izfroknh us ;g lkfcr dj fn;k gS fo oknxzLr ifjlj dqynhipUn ds thfor jgrs dqynhipan ds lkFk dqVqEc ds lnL; ds :i esa dkjksckj dj jgk Fkk rks bl laca/k esa izfroknh us Loa; ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds firk dh nqdku vjksM+k oa’k efUnj ds ikl Fkh ftlesa firk ds ejus ds ckn os vius HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk dke dj jgk FkkA vc mldk NksVk csVk lqjsUnz nks pkj lky ls cSBus yxk gS vkSj og dqynhipan dh nqdku esa cSBrk gS rks blls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q rd izfroknh vius HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk O;kikj es cSBk;k vkSj Loa; vius iq= dh e`R;q ds ckn iq= dh nqdku ij cSBdj O;kikj djus yxkA ;fn dqynhipan ds thoudky esa gh izfroknh Vsdpan dqynhipan ds lkFk O;kikj djrk Fkk rks og bl rF; dks c[kwch dFku dj ldrk Fkk vkSj vius dFku ds leFkZu esa dqynhipan ds cfg;ka ftuesa uQk uqdlku izfroknh dks ckVak x;k gks dks lkfcr djrk vFkok ;fn dqynhipan laa;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; ds :i esa dk;Z djrk rks izfroknh tks O;kikjh gS mlus ;fn dqN jde vius iq= dks la;qDr ifjokj ds fgLls ds :i esa nh gksrh rks ml laca/k es Hkh nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dj nsrk vFkok vk;dj esa la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; vFkok drkZ ds :i esa viuk fjVuZ nsdj mlesa dqynhipan dh nqdku dh vk; dks Hkh lfEefyr djrk ysfdu dqynhipan dh nqdku dh cfg;ka vFkok izfroknh ds vk;dj fjVuZ izLrqr dj ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k fd dqynhipan la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; ds gksrh rks ml laca/k es Hkh nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dj nsrk vFkok vk;dj esa la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; vFkok drkZ ds :i esa viuk fjVuZ nsdj mlesa dqynhipan dh nqdku dh vk; dks Hkh lfEefyr djrk ysfdu dqynhipan dh nqdku dh cfg;ka vFkok izfroknh ds vk;dj fjVuZ izLrqr dj ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k fd dqynhipan la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; ds :i esa nqdku pyk jgk gks vfirq dqynhipan us rks Lo;a viuh nqdku gksuk bdjkjukek esa of.kZr fd;k gSA lHkh flfoy izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k laHkkoukvks ij gksrk gS ;|fi bl laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd dqynhipan o izfroknh dk la;qDr ifjokj gks ysfdu bl laca/ka esa izfroknh us ,d ek= tckuh dFku fd, gS mldks iq”V djus ds fy, fdlh izdkj dh nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugh dh tks fd O;kikfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa es egRoiw.kZ gksrh gSA egROkiw.kZ cfg;ka nqdku ds ykbalsl o nLrkosth lk{; dks izfroknh us U;k;ky; es is’k ugha fd;k vkSj tks i=koyh ij fjdkMZ gS mlls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd dqynhipan us vius futh nqdku ugh yh gksA ml nqdku esa fdl izdkj izfroknh O;kikj esa Hkkx ysrk Fkk ;g rF; izfroknh fo’oluh; rkSj ij lkfcr ugh dj ik;kA izfroknh vius iq= ls nqdku ij feyus ds fy, tkrk gks ;k dHkh dHkkj nqdku ij cSB tkrk gks rks ;g firk iq= ds fj’rs es LokHkkfod gksrk gS ysfdu mllsa ;g fu”d”kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd firk izfroknh vius iq= ds lkFk iq= ds thfor jgus le; O;kikj dj jgk gksA blh izdkj izfroknh us ;g fo’ks”k rF; tks mldh gh tkudkjh es Fkk] dks fo’oluh; rkSj ij lkfcr ugha fd;k fd og vius HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk O;kikj ugh djdsa dqynhipan ds thfor jgrs gq, dqynhipan ds lkFk Lohdk;Z :i ls dk;Z dj jgk FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa ;gh fu”d”kZ fudyrk gS fd oknh dk ;g tks dFku gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds ckn ,d ckj nqdku can jgh ckn esa izfroknh dk viuh iq=o/kq ds lkFk >xM+k gks x;k tks nqdku ds dCts dks ysdj gqvk vkSj mlds ckn izfroknh viuh iq= dh nqdku ij cSBdj O;kikj djus yxk lR; o lkfcr gSA blh izdkj tc og nqdku dk mi;ksx dj jgk Fkk rks mlus fdjk;k Hkh oknh dks vnk fd;kA tSlk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us g”kZo/kZu pkSdkuh ds fu.kZ; esa fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k fd izfroknh us vius iq= dh nqdku dk fdjk;k vnk fd;k vkSj iq= dh nqdku rFkk viuh iq= dh nqdku ij cSBdj O;kikj djus yxk lR; o lkfcr gSA blh izdkj tc og nqdku dk mi;ksx dj jgk Fkk rks mlus fdjk;k Hkh oknh dks vnk fd;kA tSlk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us g”kZo/kZu pkSdkuh ds fu.kZ; esa fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k fd izfroknh us vius iq= dh nqdku dk fdjk;k vnk fd;k vkSj iq= dh nqdku rFkk fdjk,nkj }kjk fn, x, fdjk, dks oknh us Lohdkj fd;k ysfdu fdjk;k ysu nsu ls izfroknh fdjk,nkj ugha ekuk x;kA blh izdkj iq= dh e`R;q ds ckn ;fn izfroknh vius iq= dh nqdku esa dke djus yx x;k rks mls dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ds :i esa fdjk,nkj dks feyus okyh lqj{kk ugha fey ldrhA rF;ksa ij ;g Li”V gS fd iq= ds ftUnk jgrs izfroknh vius HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk O;kikj dj jgk Fkk rks mlus vius iq= dqynhipan dks vyx ls O;kikj ‘kq: djok;k rFkk iq= dh e`R;q ds i’pkr iq= dh nqdku ij izfroknh cSBus yxk rks vius HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk NksVs iq= dks cSBk;kA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa fdjk,nkj dks LVsVl izkIr ugh gqvkA lkj :i esa izfroknh u rks fdjk,nkj gqvk vkSj u gh mls dkuwuh fdjk,nkj dk LVsV izkIr gqvk og rks iq= dh e`R;q ds ckn O;kikj dks laHkkyus okyk gqvkA mlls mls fdjk,nkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk tc fdjk,nkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk rks jktLFkku ifjlj vf/kfu;e 1950 ds rgr mldh csn[kyh dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS vkSj tc izfroknh u rks fdjk,nkj ekuk tk, u dkuwuh fdjk,nkj ekuk tk, rks mls vfrØeh ekuk tk ldrk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa tc izfroknh u fdjk,nkj gqvk u dkuwuh fdjk,nkj gqvk rks vfrØeh gh gqvkA oknh ds ifjis{; esa rFkk bl okn ds ifjis{; esa ;g rks xkS.k gS fd izfroknh us rkyk rksM+dj dCtk fd;k gks ;k viuh iq=o/kq ls >xM+k djds dCtk fd;k blfy, ;fn ;s rF; lkfcr ugha Hkh gq, rks mlls Hkh bu rudh ds fu.kZ; ij dksbZ nq”izHkko ugh iM+rkA bl rudh esa rks ;gh fu/kkZfjr djuk Fkk fd izfroknh dks fdjk,nkj ;k dkuwuh fdjk,nkj dk LVsVl izkIr gqvk vFkok ugh] tks mijksDr foospu ls ugh gksuk ik;k tkrk gS vkSj izfroknh dks Qyr% vfrØeh vukf/kd`r dkfct O;fDr ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj bl rudh dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 5. While deciding the other issues in favour of plaintiff/respondent, the decree passed in the following manner: - ^^17- oknh dk okn oknh ds i{k esa izfroknh ds fo:) bl izdkj fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh oknxzLr ifjlj nqdku ua-2 dk dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk rFkk rkjh[k nkok nk;jh fnukad 7-8-99 ls dCtk ikus rd oknh izfroknh ls oknxzLr ifjlj dk 4200@& :i;s ekgokj dh nj ls var%dkyhu ykHk Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA bl cdk;k jde ij oknh izfroknh ls 6 izfr’kr okf”kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA izfroknh us fdlh Hkh :i esa nqdku ds mi;ksx miHkksx djus dh jkf’k oknh dks vnk dh gS rks og jde izfroknh oknh ls lek;ksftr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA blds vykok oknh okn dk [kpkZ Hkh izfroknh ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA oknh izfroknh ls fooknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk fu.kZ; ds nks ekg ckn ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA Sd/- ¼tuknZu O;kl½ fof’k”V U;k;k/kh’k U;k;ky; ,y-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k] Jh xaxkuxj ¼jkt-½^^ 6. Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants raised following contentions in the present case for consideration by this Court. (i) That the present Suit No.57/2004 Khemchand Vs. Tekchand, was barred by estopple as the earlier Suit No.42/1994 was not withdrawn by the plaintiff- Khemchand on 05.07.1999 without taking any liberty from the Court for instituting a fresh suit and, therefore, in view of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) read with Section 11 of CPC, 1908, the subsequent suit was barred. (ii) That the plaintiff, Khemchand could not institute suit since the original tenancy was by created by his wife, Surati Devi, against the widow of tenant, Kuldeepchand, Smt. Saroj Bala and her minor daughter, Ms. Priyanka, in which the present defendant, Tekchand, was also impleaded as party-defendant as guardian of Ms. Priyank, daughter of Saroj Bala and Kuldeepchand (original tenant), who was also arrayed as a defendant but was a minor and the plaintiff did not allow the question of defendant Tekchand's relation as tenant qua the landlord, Surati Devi, to be determined after the remand order of the appellate court dated 27.07.1998 and withdrew the suit itself on 05.07.1999. Priyank, daughter of Saroj Bala and Kuldeepchand (original tenant), who was also arrayed as a defendant but was a minor and the plaintiff did not allow the question of defendant Tekchand's relation as tenant qua the landlord, Surati Devi, to be determined after the remand order of the appellate court dated 27.07.1998 and withdrew the suit itself on 05.07.1999. Since, the defendant, Tekchand, father of Kuldeepchand, became statutory tenant by inheritance within the meaning of Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act of 1950) and having carried on the business with his son, Kuldeepchand, he could be evicted in the present suit treating him as a trespasser as he was a tenant in the said suit shop. (iii) That even if the defendant, Tekchand, was not treated as tenant of the suit shop in question, in any case, he could not be treated as a trespasser, since he was a family member and, therefore, his possession over the suit shop was not as a trespasser and the decree under appeal deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iv) That after impleadment in the previous Suit No.42/1994, the defendant- Tekchand paid the rent as determined by the court in the previous suit and even subsequent thereto, which was accepted by the plaintiff, Khemchand. Therefore, there was no question of treating him as a trespasser in the present Suit No.57/2004. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate, relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions, which would be dealth with separately herein after. 1. Hardev Vs. Jaidev through his Legal Representatives, reported in 2000 (1) RLW 407. 2. Indranaryan Vs. Roop Narayan & Anr. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1961. 3. Papinayakanahalli Venkanna & Ors. Vs. Janadri Venkanna Setty (by LRs) reported in AIR 1985 Karnataka 166. 4. Gordhan Das through Legal Representatives Vs. Som Dutt reported in 2007 (6) WLC (Raj.) 56. 5. Hari Ram Vs. Lichmaniya & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1001. 6. Narayan Jethanand & Ors. Vs. Asapuri Vijay Saw Mill reported in AIR 1995 Guj. 194 . 7. Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi and Mr. reported in 2003 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1001. 6. Narayan Jethanand & Ors. Vs. Asapuri Vijay Saw Mill reported in AIR 1995 Guj. 194 . 7. Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi and Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and submitted that neither the subject-matter, nor parties were common in the previous Suit No.42/94, and the present Suit No.57/04, nor the position of estopple or res-judicata applied in the present case. They further contended that the status of the present defendant, Tekchand, was nothing more than that of a trespasser, as he neither could inherit the tenancy of his predeceased son, Kuldeepchand, nor he ever became statutory tenant otherwise, qua the plaintiff, Khemchand, or his wife Surati Devi, at any point of time and merely because he (Tekchand) was impleaded in the previous Suit No.42/94, as guardian of Ms. Priyanka, did not confer upon him any status of tenant. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Sr. Advocate also urged that looking to his dispute with own daughter-inlaw, namely, Saroj Bala, widow of Kuldeepchand, which went to the extent of Section 145 Cr. P.C. proceedings over the possession of the suit shop in question, it clearly showed that defendant, Tekchand, had taken the forcible possession of the suit shop in question and not in regular course of business. 9. They have also drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of Smt. Saroj Bala, dated 29.04.2000 recorded by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar as AW.1 in Criminal Proceedings No.176/1993- Saroj Bala Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi, in which he stated about the sour relationship with her father-in-law (defendant-Tekchand) and that he had no right over the suit shop in question. Mr. Smt. Laxmi Devi, in which he stated about the sour relationship with her father-in-law (defendant-Tekchand) and that he had no right over the suit shop in question. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the defendant, Tekchand, father of original tenant, Kuldeepchand, inherited the tenancy or became statutory tenant in the said suit shop as the defendant failed to prove by any evidence that he was ordinarily carrying on the business with Kuldeepchand, prior to his death in the suit shop as a family member and on the contrary, in his own statement in the cross-examination, Tekchand, had admitted that he was carrying on business with his brothers in the shop belonging to their father, situated near Arora Vansh Temple in Sri Ganganagar up to the time of death of Kuldeep. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents also drew the attention of the Court towards the Rent-note executed by Surati Devi W/o Khemchand, who died before filing of the present Suit No.57/2004 and that is why the plaintiff, Khemchand, her husband, and the owner of the suit property filed the present suit and emphasized that said tenancy created in favour of Kuldeepchand on 25.03.1985, was only for a period of one year and it clearly stipulated that same was for individual business of tenant, Kuldeepchand and he will not take any body else as partner in the business. Mr. Thanvi, also submitted that since the stand taken by the defendant, Tekchand, before the trial court was that he was partner with his son, Kuldeepchand, in the business in the suit shop in question, he could not claim any benefit of having inherited tenancy as a family member under Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act of 1950. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention, which will be dealt with herein after. 1. Gopi Kishan Vs. Bajrang Lal & Anr. reported in 1996 (1) RLW 690. 2. LR's of Tribhuvan Dutt Vs. Jai Narayan, reported in (2009) 4 RLW 3364 (Raj. 3. Ramji Dass & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Rani & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) RCR 189. 4. Neon Lawrie & Anr. Vs. M/s O.R. Properties & Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1161. 12. 2. LR's of Tribhuvan Dutt Vs. Jai Narayan, reported in (2009) 4 RLW 3364 (Raj. 3. Ramji Dass & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Rani & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) RCR 189. 4. Neon Lawrie & Anr. Vs. M/s O.R. Properties & Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 1161. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the evidence on record and judgments cited at bar. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present first appeal filed by the defendant, Tekchand, who is now represented through his legal representatives, Smt. Laxmi Devi and others, deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows. 14. The defendant, Tekchand, even though father of the original tenant, Kuldeepchand, who pre-deceased his father having died on 04.06.1993, could not inherit the tenancy of his son and could not get the benefit under Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act of 1950 as he failed to lead any evidence before the court below for establishing that he was ordinarily carrying on the business with the tenant, Kuldeepchand in the suit shop in question. He was also not Class-I heir qua his son Kuldeepchand, whose successors viz. wife- Smt. Saroj Bala and daughter- Ms. Priyanka and mother Smt. Laxmi Devi, could only claim such right being the Class-I heirs and only if further he could establish that he was ordinarily carrying on the business in the suit shop with original tenant, Kuldeepchand. The evidence on the other hand is on the contrary that the defendant, Tekchand, himself has admitted in his statement that he was carrying on business with his brothers in another shop situated near Arora Vansh Temple, and not in the present suit shop. Though he had the Books of Accounts of business of Sh. Kuldeepchand, but he never produced the same before the learned trial court to show that he had any share in profit with his son, Kuldeepchand, even though he was not actively participating in the business, but if he claimed to be a partner with his son, he could have produced the partnership-deed, registration certificate of such firm etc. with the Registrar of Firms including the books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business to establish such a fact, but nothing of this sort was done. 15. with the Registrar of Firms including the books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business to establish such a fact, but nothing of this sort was done. 15. Merely, being a family member, even though not being Class-I heir as per personal law, namely, Hindu Succession Act, applying in the present case it would not be sufficient to confer upon him the status of a statutory tenant upon succession in terms of Section 3 (vii) (b) of the said Act unless the fact of ordinarily carrying on business with the tenant is also established. Being a relative entitled to succeed to the deceased tenant's property according to personal law, and ordinarily carrying on the business with him, are the twin conditions required to be satisfied and even if one of them is absent, the foundation of claiming relationship of statutory tenant under the said provisions falls to the ground. This is what the view which was taken by this Court in the case of Gopi Kishan Vs. Bajrang Lal & Anr.(supra). The relevant Para Nos. 25 to 27 of the said judgment are quoted herein below for ready reference: - “25. Although Smt. Suraj Devi is heir of deceased Rampratap but indisputably since she was not carrying on business with her deceased husband Rampratap, therefore, she fulfills only one condition and other condition is lacking hence she is not necessary party in the present suit and the plaintiff appellant is fully justified not to implead her. 26. As regards the claim of the defendant respondents of being tenant of the shop in question they have proved only one condition about carrying on business with deceased Rampratap without disclosing their capacity whether as a servant or as a partner. But they miserably failed to establish themselves as heirs of deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to claim themselves to be the tenant of the shop in question. 27. In my humble opinion for impleadment as party in a suit under Act No.17 of 1950 and for acquiring status of tenant under Sec. 3 (vii) (b) of the said Act, both the conditions precedent required to coexist. If any one of them is missing then no one can claim either to be impleaded as a party or claim himself to be the tenant of the shop in question.” 16. If any one of them is missing then no one can claim either to be impleaded as a party or claim himself to be the tenant of the shop in question.” 16. Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act of 1950 is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- “Section 3 (vii) (b): in the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub-clause (a), his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applicable to him who had been, in the case of premises leased out for residential purposes, ordinarily residing and in the case of premises purposes, ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death”. In the case of LR's of Tribhuvan Dutt Vs. Jai Narayan (supra), this Court held as under: - “In view of aforesaid decision of this Court following the Supreme Court decisions, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Ram Jeevani [1991 (1) RLW 222] still holds the field and deserves to be followed cannot be sustained. The said judgment being in conflict with the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad [ (1990) 3 SCC 526 ] stands impliedly overruled and this has already been said by coordinate bench of this Court in case of Chiman Lal vs. Narendra Kumar [(1995) 2 RLW (Raj) 415]. Thus, it is very clear that though tenancy rights are heritable, in order to fall within the definition of tenant the legal representative in the matter is governed by the Rent Control Act, 1950, which is a special law and the legal representative of the deceased tenant has to fulfill the conditions and requirements of Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and unless he or she is carrying on the business with the deceased tenant upto the date of his death, he cannot fall within the definition of tenant under Section 3(vii) (b) of the Act of 1950, therefore, cannot be taken on record to pursue the litigation and claim such heritable rights merely because as per the personal succession laws, he or she would fall within the definition of legal representative under Section 2 (11) CPC.” 17. Secondly, the claim of the plaintiff, Khemchand, that defendant, Tekchand, came into possession of the suit shop in question by taking forcible possession by breaking open the locks after the death of his son, Kuldeepchand, and dispute with his daughter-in-law, Saroj Bala, and proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C., were also initiated by him, is clear from his own statement before the Court. P.C., were also initiated by him, is clear from his own statement before the Court. The relevant portion of his cross-examination as quoted in the impugned order of the trial court in Para 7 is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k fd dqynhipan cM+k yM+dk Fkk og diM+s dk dke esjs lkFk djrk FkkA vjksM+k oa’k eafnj esa esjs firkth dh diM+s dh nqdku gS esjs firk th thfor ugh gS mudks ejs gq, 14&15 lky gks x,A muds ejus ds ckn ge nqdku ij rhu HkkbZ dke djrs FksaA vc Hkh ge mlh nqdku esa dke dj jgs gSA vjksM+k Oka’k okyh nqdku ij esjk yM+dk lqjsUnz cSBrk gS og nks pkj lky ls cSBus yxk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ‘kknh ds ckn dqynhipan us vyx nqdku dh gksA dqynhipan ds lkFk esjh Hkkxhnkjh Fkh D;ksafd eSa cSBrk FkkA Hkkxhnkjh dh dksbZ fy[kri<+r ugh gqbZ FkhA cfg;kr es uQk uqdlku o caVokjs dk bUnzkt ugha fd;kA ;g xyr gS fd bl nqdku ls dksbZ laca/k ugh Fkk ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa dqynhipan ds lkFk bl nqdku ij dHkh ugh cSBkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dqynhipUn esjs ls vyx gksdj nqxkZ dkyksuh esa edku ysdj jgrk gksA og esjs lkFk jgrk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd nqdku ij dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds ckn mldh ifRu ljkst us vius rkys yxk fn, gksA ;g xyr gS fd ;g nqdku mlds ckn nks lky can iM+h jgh gks ;g xyr gS fd mlds ckn geus tcjnLrh rkys rksM+dj dCTkk dj fy;k gksA esjs csVs dh cgw vius ihgj esa [ksepan ds fl[kkus ls nqdku ij vk tkrh Fkh blfy, 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh gqbZ FkhA 145 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh geus gekjh iq=o/kq ds fo:) dh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd dqynhipan dk uQk uqdlku vyx vyx ntZ ugha gSaA ;g xyr gS fd dqynhipan thfor Fkk rc rd vdsyk bl nqdku ls O;kikj djrk gks vkSj eS ,d Hkh fnu uk cSBk gksaÅA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd dqynhipan dh e`R;q ds ckn eSaus nqdku ij tcjnLrh dCtk dj fy;k gksA^^ 18. There being a dispute between defendant- Tekchand, with his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saroj Bala, is also clear from the statement of Saroj Bala, recorded in Criminal Case No.176/1993- Saroj Bala Vs. There being a dispute between defendant- Tekchand, with his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saroj Bala, is also clear from the statement of Saroj Bala, recorded in Criminal Case No.176/1993- Saroj Bala Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi, by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, on 29.04.2000. The relevant extract of which is also quoted herein below: ^^esjh ‘kknh o”kZ 1989 esa dqynhipUn ds lkFk ‘kknh gqbZ FkhA eSa ‘kknh ds ckn vius llqjky nks lky jghA llqj yM+kbZ >xM+k djrk FkkA vkSj eq>s fiVokrk FkkA fQj eSa vius ihgj vk xbZA ihgj tc eSa vkbZ] rc esjh cPph esjs lkFk FkhA fQj eSusa ekjihV dh ,QvkbZvkj ntZ djokbZA fQj iapk;rh jkrh rkSj ij jkthukek gqvkA jkthukek ls eSaua vius ek;ds ds xgus j[k fy;s o llqjky okyks us vius xgus j[k fy;sA esjh cPph ds uke ls 50-000@& :i;s ds bfUnjk fodkl i= [kjhn djds fn;sA jkthukek ds ckn eS o esjk ifr vius llqjky ls vyx jgus yx x;sA eq>s esjs tks xgus fn,s x;s Fksa mldh ckcr eSaus vius o vius ifr ds uke ls ykWdj ys fy;kA ykWdj es lkjk lkeku j[k fn;s vkSj bfUnjk fodkl i= o ,d ,QMh mlesa j[k nhA ykWdj dh pkch ds fy;s llqj esjs lkFk >xM+k djus yx x;kA iwuepan vxzoky ,M- ns nh oks esjk fj’rsnkj yxrk gSA vc pkch ykWdj dh mlds ikl gSA esjws ifr dk LoxZokl vkt ls 6 lky igys gks x;kA esjk ifr y{eh dVihl dk nqdku vyx djrk FkkA ml nqdku esa esjs llqj o vkSj fdlh dk gd ugh FkkA^^ 19. From the above, it is clear that defendant, Tekchand, did not come into possession of the suit shop in question either through his son, Kuldeepchand, or even his daughter-in-law, Saroj Bala. Thus, except being treated as trespasser, there was no legal relationship or status, which he could claim for retaining the possession of the suit shop in question. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate, that in the earlier Suit No.42/1994 only the relationship of his being tenant could be determined is fallacious and not sustainable. There was no lack of jurisdiction with the present civil court of learned District Judge, who decreed the suit on 19.11.2004 deciding the said issue. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate, that in the earlier Suit No.42/1994 only the relationship of his being tenant could be determined is fallacious and not sustainable. There was no lack of jurisdiction with the present civil court of learned District Judge, who decreed the suit on 19.11.2004 deciding the said issue. While deciding the Issue No.1, the learned District Judge has discussed this contention as well and has clearly found that he could not claim to be tenant under Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act of 1950. There being no patent lack of jurisdiction of the learned trial court in this regard, mere withdrawal of earlier Suit No.42/1994 without deciding the said issue cannot operate as an estopple, bar or resjudicata to the institution of present suit. The present suit was for entirely different cause of action, namely, to seek ejectment of a trespasser by the owner of the property whereas the earlier suit was for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950. 20. In almost similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Neon Lawrie & Anr. Vs. M/s O.R. Properties & Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors., (supra) held that principles of res-judicata would not apply in such case. The relevant portion of said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: “7. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as transpiring from the record, the earlier suit was filed by M/s. Phool Chand Virendra Kumar against the original tenant Smt. D. Lawrie, and alleged subtenant Smt. Sheela Khanna, in which the eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide necessity and sub-letting, whereas the present suit was filed by M/s. O.R. Properties against the sons of Smt. D. Lawrie and Smt. Sheela Khanna. Apart from the fact that the cause of action in earlier suit and in the subsequent suit was absolutely different, even the parties in both the suits were different. Even if it is construed that M/s. O.R. Properties was the successor in title after M/s. Phool Chand Virendra Kumar and the decision of earlier suit was binding on M/s. O.R. Properties, then also it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that causes of action in both the suits were same for the reasons set out hereinafter. Even if it is construed that M/s. O.R. Properties was the successor in title after M/s. Phool Chand Virendra Kumar and the decision of earlier suit was binding on M/s. O.R. Properties, then also it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that causes of action in both the suits were same for the reasons set out hereinafter. No doubt, it might prima facie appear that the earlier suit was filed seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity and sub-letting and the subsequent suit was also filed on the ground of bona fide necessity and sub-letting, over and above on the ground of arrears of rent and therefore the causes of action in both the suits were same. However, the most important aspect in the subsequent suit was that the plaintiff M/s. O.R. Properties had alleged in the suit in question that after the death of original tenant Smt. D. Lawrie, the tenancy rights had not devolved upon any of her sons i.e. the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Therefore, the filing of subsequent suit by the plaintiff M/s. O.R. Properties was on the subsequent event having taken place i.e. death of original tenant Smt. D. Lawrie, and the material issue in the subsequent suit was as to whether the tenancy rights had devolved upon the sons of Smt. D. Lawrie after her death, as contemplated in Section 3(vii)(b) of the said Act, which was not the matter in issue in the earlier suit.” 21. Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ramji Dass & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Rani & Ors. (supra) held that where eviction was sought on the ground of subletting by the tenant, in favour of his sons upon death of tenant father, the sons would not become direct tenant and they were liable for eviction. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under: - “... In Gajanan Dattatray v. Sherbanu Hoasang Patel and other, 176 RCR (Rent) 33 : AIR 1975 SC 2156 , it was held that the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (as applied to Gujarat) indicated that a tenant was disentitled to any protection under Act if he was within the mischief of the provisions relating to subletting. The language of the said provisions, it was observed, is that if the tenant had sublet, the protection ceases and it cannot be contended that the subletting must continue on the date of the suit for passing a decree for eviction. The tenant's liability to eviction arises once the fact of unlawful subletting is proved at the date of notice. In Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam and others ( AIR 2004 SC 2299 ), eviction had been sought on the ground of subletting and the original tenant died. It was observed that the heirs of the original tenants not only inherit the tenancy but also the rights and obligations of the tenancy. Therefore, the ground of subletting having been made out against the petitioners, which entitle the landlords to possession cannot be nullified with the death of the tenant. The petitioners by reasons of death of Mohri Ram not only inherit his rights but also his obligations. In view of the said position the stand taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that with the death of Mohri Ram his LRs have become direct tenants of the landlords in the two cases is not legally sustainable in view of the judgments referred to above. Besides, it may be noticed that the position has to be seen at the time of institution of the suit.” 22. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate in the case of Hardev Vs. Jaidev through his Legal Representatives (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the defendant parted with the possession in favour of his mother and brother's wife and the Court held that since mother and brother's wife are prospective heirs, therefore, the tenant cannot be said to have parted with possession favour of these relatives exclusively and, therefore, they would become posthumous tenant under Section 3 (vii) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1950. Even in that case, the learned Single Judge clarified that such right of family members u/s 3 (vii) (a) or (b) would be co-extensive right of possession with the tenant unless a decree of eviction was passed against the tenant on the grounds specified under Section 13 of the Rent Control Act of 1950. Even in that case, the learned Single Judge clarified that such right of family members u/s 3 (vii) (a) or (b) would be co-extensive right of possession with the tenant unless a decree of eviction was passed against the tenant on the grounds specified under Section 13 of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The relevant para 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: - “It is true that during the lifetime of contractual or statutory tenant reckoned under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (vii) of Section 3 of Act No. 17 of 1950 and before birth of the hereditary tenant under Clause (b) of the said Section such "posthumous tenant" being heir and member of family of the tenant referred to under Sub-clause (a) will have no independent or separate right except to reside in the premises if it happens to be residential or to carry on business with contractual or statutory tenant as member of his family during his lifetime in order to make him entitled to inherit the tenancy right in the event of death of either contractual tenant or statutory tenant in accordance with the personal law applicable to them. It is made clear that "posthumous tenant" as a family member of tenant during his lifetime will have no other right or interest except to remain in possession along with him and he has to vacate the premises if a decree for eviction is passed against the tenant on any of the grounds enumerated under Clause (a) to (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950. The protective umbrella of right of possession to "posthumous tenant" as a member of family of the tenant either contractual or statutory referred under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (vii) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act would be co-extensive with the subsisting tenancy right of tenant and the protective umbrella of possession and user would be unfolded if tenancy right of a tenant ceases to exist on any of the grounds enumerated under Clause s (a) to (1) of Subsection (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950.” 23. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court with reference to withdrawal of suit under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC without seeking liberty to file fresh suit is also not helpful to the defendants since this Court finds that the present Suit No.57/2004 to be filed for a different cause of action than the earlier Suit No.42/1994 and, therefore, the earlier suit would not bar the present suit even though the previous suit was withdrawn without any such liberty to file fresh suit. For the same reason, the judgment of this Court in the cases of Hari Ram Vs. Lichmaniya & Ors. (supra) and Gordhan Das through Legal Representatives Vs. Som Dutt (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors. (supra) is also not applicable because that was a case dealing with writ jurisdiction and where the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action, the subsequent writ petition was also found to be not maintainable. The principles of CPC were invoked in that case for the same analogy but which is of little help to the facts obtaining in the present case. 24. Thus on the basis of entire conspectus of factual and legal matrix, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in decreeing the ejection suit for dispossession of the defendant, Tekchand, who is now represented by his legal representatives from the suit shop in question and there is no reason to take a different view of the matter by this Court and, therefore, the present first appeal of the appellants/defendants is liable to be dismissed. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs within three months from today. 25. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs within three months from today. 25. The appellants/defendants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of nine month i.e. on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- per month commencing from May, 2015 and will further continue to pay the same mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for ejectment shall stand reduced and the decree of ejectment would become executable forthwith. The appellants/ defendants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondents/plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellants/defendants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third party will also bound by this decree. The appellants/defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs within nine months i.e. on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondents-plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.