- (1.)THIS second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of bikaner dated January 9, 1961, in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction.
(2.)THE facts are quite simple. Plaintiff Ramdayal, and before him his pre-decersor ram Ratan pass, were "mahants" of the Dadoo Panthi "math" at Sardar-sahar. They owned a "nohra" and a "kothri" shown in the site-plan. Ram Ratan Dass let out these premises to the defendants for the residence of defendant Shobhachand and staging of dramas by the Manoranjan Natya Parishad of which defendant shobhachand was the President, while defendant Himkar was the Secretary. The premises were taken on an annual rent of Rs. 150. The plaintiff pleaded that it was agreed between the parties that the rent would be payable in advance, but that the defendants did not pay the rent after Chaitra Sud 8, S. 2011, and that after calculating the rent for the intercalary month a total sum of Rs. 156/4 was recoverable from the defendants which they failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff asked for the eviction of the defendants on the grounds that they had not paid the rent, did not allow him to carry on worship at the "samadhi" of Ram Ratan Dass (who* had died), and did not stage the dramas; and also because he did not any longer want to keep them as his tenants in the suit premises. For that purpose the plaintiff gave two notices to the defendants, and instituted the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession when the notices went unheeded. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff initially filed the suit against Shobhachand and Himkar, and impleaded the Manoranjan Natya Parishad and its members as co-defendants by a subsequent amendment, with the permission of the court.
(3.)THE defendants denied the alleged lease of the "kothri" and pleaded that it had been given free of rent for the residence of Shobhachand. As regards the "nohra", they pleaded that it was given on rent by Ram Ratan Dass in S. 1982 on an annual rent of Rs. 100, on the condition that he would not get it vacated as long as the natya Parishad continued to remain in existence and staged the dramas. It was pleaded that the annual rent was merely raised to Rs. 150 on March 12, 1946, but otherwise the old conditions remained intact. It was denied that the ren't was payable in advance. It was also denied that there was any "samadhi" of Ram ratan Dass, or that there was any question of worshipping it, and it was further asserted that the earlier terms of the lease were re-affirmed by a document dated october 13, 1955. The receipt of the notices was admitted, but it was pleaded that they were unauthorized. The main defence however was that as the Manoranjan natya Parishad continued to be in existence, and was staging the dramas, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a suit for eviction. The defendants filed documents Ex. A-2 dated March, 12, 1946 and Ex. A-1 dated October 13, 1955 in support of their plea.
;