- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant-lessee being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011 passed by learned court Additional District Judge, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No.15/2007- Manna Lal & Anr. Vs. Suraj Bhan Singh, in respect of shop in question given on lease situated at Ladnu, near Rahu-Kua at monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month. The respondents-plaintiffs, namely, Manna Lal S/o Kalu Ram and Premsukh S/o Kalu Ram terminated the said lease by serving a notice (Exhibit-1) dated 02.05.2007 since the defendant- appellant failed to pay monthly rent for the period 31.12.1994 to 02.05.2007 which would come to Rs.26,757/-. The upon service of the summons of the eviction suit, filed his written statement submitted that since the lease was for three years, however, the rent note was neither properly stamped nor registered one and as such the same was not admissible in the evidence. The appellant-defendant also denied the factum of sub- letting the shop to Mohan Singh and in this respect, the defendant averred that the said Mohan Singh is his real brother, who is also residing with him. In the written statement, the defendant-lessee also averred that he is ready and willing to pay the monthly rent, however, the plaintiffs have refused to accept the same. In support of his case, the defendant produced himself as DW.1, however, did not produce any documentary evidence. The learned court below after hearing the arguments of defendant-appellant vide the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011 decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction. The present first appeal has been filed by the defendant in this Court on 01.09.2011 and the same was heard at the admission stage by the consent of both the learned counsels for the parties.
(3.) MR. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant- defendant heavily relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Lala Praduman Kumar Vs. Virendra Goyal (dead) by his Legal Representatives & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 1349. The appellant-defendant-lessee has also filed an application (IA No.20656/2011, wherein it has been averred that since the defendant-appellant is now ready to deposit the entire arrears of rent in terms of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the forfeiture of the lease may be released and the eviction decree may not be passed against the defendant-lessee. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Purshottam Dalal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (SBCFA No.346/2010, decided on 08.08.2011) and decision of Calcutta High Cuort in the case of Gopinath Mukherjee Vs. Uttam Bharati reported in AIR 2009 Calcutta 58 submitted that the application filed by the defendant-lessee is not even bonafide, which has not only been filed at the initial stage of the suit itself which is mandatory for Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even after the pendency of the present appeal before this Court for considerable time has been elapsed ever since filing the same on 01.09.2011, the present application (IA No.20656/11) has been filed on 28.11.2011. The defendant has not paid any rent, interest thereon and cost of litigation and has not tendered any such payment. He, therefore, submitted that no such relief of forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act can be made in his favour. He also submitted that the relief granted in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Lala Praduman Kumar (supra), was in the peculiar facts and that case, the defendant made huge investment on the premises and for showing his bonafides, he had deposited the entire money of dues of rent by filing application and, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted that indulgence in a particular case. He, however, submitted that same cannot operate as a precedent or as a law declared binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same of no avail to the defendant-appellant. ;