- (1.) THE defendant ­ tenant Nasrudeen s/o Badrudeen has filed the present second appeal in this Court on 23.11.1996 against the plaintiff ­ landlord Sayad Mohammad Umar s/o Barkat Ali Musalman being aggrieved by the concurrent decrees of eviction of the two courts below.
(2.) THE trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pali decreed the eviction suit No.163-92 ­ Sayad Mohammad Umar s/o Barkat Ali vs. Nasrudeen vs. Badrudeen on 22.02.1995 in respect of the suit premises ­ a residential house situated at Chudigharon Ka Bas, Pali, which was initially let out to the defendant ­ tenant Nasrudeen at the monthly rent of Rs.40.00 and in respect of which, the First Suit No.190/1986 was filed by the plaintiff ­ landlord Sayad Mohammad Umar for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, which was decreed and disposed of on 11.12.1989 giving benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. However, upon the second default committed for the non-payment of rent for the period from April 1990 to September 1990, the plaintiff filed the present Suit No.163/1992 on 13.11.1990, which came to be decreed by the learned trial court on 22.02.1995 and the defendant ­ tenant's First Appeal No.38/95 ­ Nasrudeen s/o Badrudeen vs. Sayad Mohammad Umar s/o Barkat Ali also came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pali on 23.08.1996. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pali dated 23.08.1996, the defendant ­ tenant Nasrudeen s/o Badrudeen has approached this Court by way of the present second appeal on 23.11.1996 and while admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.01.1997: (1) WHETHER the limitation of 6 months envisaged under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 is to be computed from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by law or it is to be gathered from other evidence for rejecting a plaint within the meaning of sub rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of Civil Procedure Code ? (2) WHETHER in the present case both the courts below have committed serious illegality in refusing to compute 6 months limitation from the statement of the plaint itself for rejecting the plaint under sub rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of Civil Procedure Code ?
(3.) THE plaintiff ­ landlord, Sayad Mohammad Umar s/o Barkat Ali unfortunately died on 27.07.2003 and the suit property came to be sold by his son Sayad Mukhtiar Ali on 16.02.2004 by a registered sale deed to the respondent No.2 ­ Sayad Mohabbat Ali s/o Sayad Mohammad Ali. On an application being IA No.16001/2009 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed by the purchaser Sayad Mohabbat Ali, the said application came to be allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on February 01, 2010, upon no objection given by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Swanand Sasmatia and he was impleaded as party respondent No.2 in the present appeal of the defendant ­ tenant. The amended cause title was, thus, taken on record and he became the landlord qua the appellant ­ tenant and got right to sue, since attornment in law is automatic.;