Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1029 (RAJ)

BSNL v. Trust Murti Mandir Shri Kaila

2025-04-07

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. This Civil First Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Karauli (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 11/2007 (44/2006) titled as Trust Murti Mandir Shri Kaila Devi Ji and Anr. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam and Ors., whereby the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) for eviction, recovery of the lease amount and damages in their favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction, recovery of the lease amount and damages mentioning therein that one old temple popularly known as Mandir Mata Shree Kailadevi Ji is situated in village Kaila Devi Sub Division and District Karauli and a registered public trust has been duly constituted for managing the affairs of the temple. The plaintiff No.1 is the sole trustee and plaintiff No. 2 is the manager of the trust. It was also mentioned that one building known as ‘Kothi Dyampal Ji’ (Shikaar Mahal) and adjacent huge land near Circuit House Karauli was in the khatedari and possession of the trust. Since, the defendants were in need of a building for extension of Telecommunication facilities, so defendants had taken the vacant land at monthly rent of Rs. 12,500/- per month on lease and possession was handed over to the defendants on 01.01.2003. Since then, they are in possession of the disputed premises. They had materially altered the disputed premises and did not pay a single penny towards the monthly lease amount from 01.01.2003 till filing of the suit. Legal notice with regard to termination of the lease deed was served to the defendants on 06.09.2006 and inspite of this, they had not handed over the vacant possession of the disputed premises of the plaintiffs. In suit, plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.5,55,000/- with interest @18% interest and also claimed use and occupation charges of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 18% from01.09.2006 till premises are vacated. 3. In suit, plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.5,55,000/- with interest @18% interest and also claimed use and occupation charges of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 18% from01.09.2006 till premises are vacated. 3. Defendants filed a written statement and categorically mentioned by them that they had taken the suit property on lease but there was a condition precedent that the rent would be paid after getting the lease deed registered which was not registered. They had not altered the disputed premises. The present suit is barred by limitation and trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because Rajasthan Rent Control Act came into force in Karauli in April 2003, whereas the suit was filed before the trial Court in the year 2006. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: 1- vk;k okn i= ds in la[;k 02 esa of.kZr ifjlj ¼tk;nkn½ dk oknh V?LV rUgk Lokeh gS\ 2- vk;k mDr ifjlj oknh V?LV }kjk izfroknhx.k dks 12]500@& :i;s izfrekg ij yht ij fn;k Fkk\ 3- vk;k mDr ifjlj esa izfroknhx.k us oknh V?LV dh fcuk vuqefr rksM+QksM+ dj lkjHkwr ifjorZu fd;k\ 4- vk;k izfroknhx.k us yht MhM dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj yht jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k gS\ 5- vk;k oknh V?LV mDr ifjlj ds mi;ksx miHkksx ;kfu bLrsekyh dk gtkZuk 20]000@&:i;s izfrekg izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6- vk;k oknh dk okn fe;kn ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 7- vk;k oknh }kjk U;k; 'kqYd de vnk fd;s tkus ls okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 8- vuqrks"k\ 4. After amendment, trial court framed following additional issue: vk;k oknh dk okn U;k;ky; gktk ds ^^Jo.kkf/kdkj@{ks=kf/kdkj dk ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\** 5. To prove his case, plaintiffs got examined PW-1 as Girdhari Singh and got exhibited some documents. To prove their case, defendants got examined Naresh Kumar Verma as DW-1. 6. After hearing both the parties, trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises within 2 months and also directed to pay the rent of Rs. 12,500/- per month from 01.01.2003 till handing over of the possession of the disputed premises with interest @ 6% per annum. 7. 12,500/- per month from 01.01.2003 till handing over of the possession of the disputed premises with interest @ 6% per annum. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs had committed serious error and had not appreciated the law as well as the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. So, judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008 passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that it was an admitted position between the parties that rent would be paid after getting the lease deed registered but the said lease was not registered. So, the defendants were not liable to pay the rent. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was came into force in the year 2001 and it also applicable in Karauli in the year 2003. So, the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Karauli had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008 passed by the trial Court be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Rajasthan Rent Control Act was not applicable at the time of execution of lease deed. Defendants failed to prove issue No. 8 because witness of the defendant, DW-1 Naresh Kumar Verma had not uttered a single word in his evidence with regard to jurisdiction of the Court. So, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. It is an admitted position that defendants had taken the disputed premises on lease from the plaintiffs and rent was agreed at Rs. 12,500/- per month from 01.01.2003 and possession was handed over to the defendants. Contention of the defendants that rent would be paid after getting the lease deed registered is not proved because there was no such condition between the parties. Plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy by giving notice on 06.09.2006. 12,500/- per month from 01.01.2003 and possession was handed over to the defendants. Contention of the defendants that rent would be paid after getting the lease deed registered is not proved because there was no such condition between the parties. Plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy by giving notice on 06.09.2006. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.