B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4/12/1999 passed by the first appellate court, by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6/3/1993, by which the learned trial court decreed the suit and passed the order of eviction of the defendant- appellant from the suit premises.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents in 1988 for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the grounds that he was introduced as a tenant by the monthly oral lease of Rs. 50/- w.e.f. 8/2/1979 and he was to pay the electric charges separately. On 1/11/1988, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 60.00 - p.m. and on 1/8/1983, it was enhanced to Rs. 70.00 p.m. The defendant-appellant paid the agreed rent upto 13/11/1983. Subsequent thereto, he had not made any payment towards the rent and the electric charges had been paid only upto 31-1-1984. On being asked to vacate the suit premises, the defendant-appellant did not vacate it, therefore, a notice dated 20-5-1988 was sent to him and inspite of service, he did not vacate the house nor made payment of arrears of rent and the electric charges. The suit was filed for his eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 3,615/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Defendant-appellant contested the suit on various grounds and contended that the agreed rent was Rs. 20- p.m. and it was later on enhanced to Rs. 30/- p.m. though he was to pay the electric charges separately. He also took the plea that the notice was defective, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues, namely, (1) whether there was an oral lease w.e.f. 8-2-1979 at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m.; (2) whether plaintiff-respondents were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,615/- as arrears of rent from the defendant-appellant; (3) whether the suit was not maintainable for the reason that the firm was not registered; and (4) whether the plaintiff was not the owner of the house and, thus, not competent to institute the suit. The learned trial court allowed the parties to lead evidence and after appreciating the same, issues No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents; issue No. 3 was decided observing that the plaintiff was a registered firm and, thus, the suit was maintainable; and on issue No. 4, it was held that though the property belonged to the firm but plaintiff, being a pertner. was entitled to maintain the suit. In view of the above, the suit was decreed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-12-1999. Hence this second appeal.;