Decided on May 10,1967

CHETANLAL Respondents


- (1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal on behalf of the defendant arises out of suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Initially the suit was filed by Mandirdas Chetan Lal against the defendant alleging that he was the owner of a bungalow known as 'rajendra Villa' at Mount Abu which the defendant had taken on rent from his mukhtiar-Am Ramchandra on 18th November, 1957, agreeing to pay rent including Municipal tax of Rs. 768 per annum. The defendant had deposited advance rent of one year. After the expiry of one year, he did not vacate the bungalow On this the plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting Rs. 1, 113-12-0 including Rs. 25-12-0 for expenses of notice served by the said plaintiff on the defendant. The defendant denied that the bungalow belonged to Mandirdas Chetanlal plaintiff. He further said that he had taken the said bungalow on rent from Premchand, son of Ram Chandra agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 768 per mensem but the said Premchand had reduced the rent next year to Rs. 600 per mensem and another rent-note was executed, and the said Premchand had been paid Rs. 600 towards rent. The plaint was amended twice and in this appeal, I am concerned only with the second amendment. On 17th January, 1961, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed that in the title of the suit, the plaintiff had been wrongly mentioned as Mandirdas chetanlal and that only Chetan Lal was the plaintiff and so the plaint may be amended. This application was opposed but the amendment was allowed on 13th march, 1961.
(2.) THE trial court dismissed the suit holding that the rent-note (Ex. 1) was executed in favour of Ramchandra, and not in favour of plaintiff Chetanlal, as such, the plaintiff Chetanlal could not maintain the suit against the defendant. The trial court did not accept as correct the defendant's case that the bungalow was given on rent by Premchand and so also the plea of payment of Rs. 600 to premchand was not accepted. It also found that the notice for ejectment was served by Mandirdas Chetanlal and such notice was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy. With these findings, the suit was dismissed in toto. Ghetanlal plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, but the appeal was confined only to the claim for the recovery of rent and no appeal was filed against the dismissal of the suit for ejectment. Learned Civil Judge held that the suit property belonged to Chetanlal who held a valid power of attorney executed by Chetanlal plaintiff, authorising him to grant lease of the property in dispute and also to file suit for ejectment of a tenant and that it was established by Ramchandra's statement that he had given the bungalow on lease to the defendant as chetanlal's agent. Taking this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the suit for rent was decreed to the extent of Rs. 1,088. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the defendant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant has urged that the trial court should not have permitted the amendment of the plaint and should not have allowed Chetanlal to be brought on record as plaintiff. There is no substance in this plea as the amendment was allowed on the ground that due to inadvertence the name of mandirdas Chetanlal in place of Chetanlal was mentioned in the title. This mistake in my opinion was rightly allowed to be corrected.;

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