BHAGWANRAM Vs. THAKURJI SHRI HANUMANJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated August 9, 1988 by which he confirmed the judgment of the Additional Munsif No. 2, Jodhpur dated September 3, 1985, decreeing the suit for ejectment and mesne profits @ Rs. 30/- per month. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON August 10, 1976, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant and for the recovery of Rs. 570/- as arrears of rent and mesne profits with the allegations, in short, that a property popularly know "Kumbat Sohan Piao" belonging to 'Thakurji Shri Balaji Hanumanji Maharaj' is situated at Mahamandir crossing, Jodhpur. It is a private trust and is managed by its founder manager and trustee Shri Sampatraj. A portion of the property consisting of a shop, front verandah and back sal is in the tenancy and occupation of the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. He has not paid rent after 31.12.1974 despite several demands. He has trespassed upon the open land and piao of the said property and also on the roofs of the demised shop and sal and is using them for last six months. He quarrelled with the next friend of the plaintiff when he requested him for not using the portions which are not in his tenancy and vacating them. He has also constructed a water tank on the said open land and he has demolished the wall intervening in between the demised shop and the sal and has constructed a door there. This has caused a great damage to the plaintiff's property and he is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month from 1.1.76. The defendant refused to take notices sent by registered post on 9.3.76, 11.5.76 and 11.6.76.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication on 12.7.78. Nine issues were framed on 26.3.79. The amount of rent and interest was determined under Section 13(3). Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) and it was duly deposited by him in time. Additional issue No. 8-A was framed on 7.1.83. The issues regarding the misjoinder of the causes of action and court-fee were decided in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 27.8.79. On September 14, 1982, the defendant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the written-statement for incorporating the plea that the said trust is a public trust, the value of the property of the trust is over Rs. 1 lac and the suit is not maintainable as it is not registered. The plaintiff filed its reply, seriously oppositing it. After hearing the parties, the trial Court partly allowed the application and permitted the amendment to the extent that the market value of the said property of the plaintiff is over Rs. 3,000/- and the suit is not maintainable as the trust is not registered. Accordingly, para No. 3 was added in the additional pleas of the written-statement. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 29.9.83, holding that shop, front verandah and back sal were only let out to the defendant, he has committed default in payment of rent, he has trespassed on other portions of the property, i.e., on the roof of the demised shop and sal and open land, he has constructed water tank and has opened a door in the wall intervening shop and sal and has thus materially altered the demised premises. It has also been held that the plaintiff is a private trust, the value of the property of the trust does not exceed Rs. 30,000/- and the suit is perfectly maintainable. Appeal No. 25/83 was filed by the defendant. It was allowed and the case was remanded to decide it afresh after recording the evidence of Shyam Singh DW-5 on the point of the market value of the property of the plaintiff trust by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by his judgment dated August 17, 1984.