HARI PRATAP Vs. RAMGOPAL
LAWS(RAJ)-1960-1-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 22,1960

HARI PRATAP Appellant
VERSUS
RAMGOPAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ABDUL HASAN KHAN V. BHURA [REFERRED TO]
MATA GHULAM V. SHEO MANGAL [REFERRED TO]
MT. KESAR KUAR V. KALLU RAM [REFERRED TO]
NIADAR V. MD. AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNA RAO V. SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
JOY GOPAL V. PROBODH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAIN JHA VS. RAMESHWAR DAYAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KIRPAL KUAR VS. BACHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SURESHCHANDRA VS. RAMCHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-1987-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
BALAK RAM VS. KEDAR NATH [LAWS(HPH)-1994-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI VS. RAM KRISHNA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1980-10-58] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

I.N.Modi, J. - (1.)This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Hari Pratap and Shyamkumar in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.
(2.)The material facts leading to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. There is a shop situate in the town of Didwana, which, according to the plaintiffs, belonged to them and one Harnath pro indiviso and that the defendant Ramgopal was let in as a tenant under a rent-note dated Baisaka Vadi 3 Smt. 1995 (corresponding to 1938 A. D.), alleged to have been executed by him in favour of all the landlords. It was agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay Rs. 2/- per mensem as rent for the shop. The plaintiffs' case further was that the defendant had paid rent up to Baisakh Vadi 3 Smt. 2001 but thereafter he defaulted. Consequently the landlords gave a notice to the defendant to terminate the tenancy and eventually filed the present suit on the 13th March, 1951, against him for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The rent appears to have been claimed at the original rate of Rs. 2/- P.M. up to the date of notice but thereafter at the enhanced rate of Rs. 10/-which was stated to be a fair rate of rent according to the market conditions prevailing at the relevant time. It may also be mentioned here that one of the landlords Harnath was impleaded as a defendant apparently because he was not willing to join in the suit. This Harnath died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court and is represented by his son Bhanwarlal who is respondent No. 2 in the present appeal.
(3.)Defendant Ramgopal resisted the suit on a number of grounds. He denied that he had ever executed any rent-note in favour of the landlords and asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiffs. He further pleaded that he had been in possession of the shop for a very long time and that he had purchased a one-third share of the shop from the defendant Harnath for a sum of Rs. 051/- and produced an unregistered sale-deed in support of the story of sale.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.