- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant � defendant- tenant Lal Chand being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd.10.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Sangaria in Civil Appeal No.4/2007 � Lal Chand V/s Manoj Kumar and anr. whereby the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant � tenant Lal Chand and affirmed the judgment and decree dtd.9.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangaria in civil Suit No.101/2001� Poonam Chand V/s Lal Chand whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff Poonam Chand for eviction on various grounds under Section 13 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 in respect of suit premises, a room, situated at Ward No.14, Sangaria..
(2.) THE learned counsel for the defendant � appellant Mr. Siddharth Tatia for Mr. V.K. Mathur urged that in the previous suit filed for eviction, namely, civil suit No.21/1985, the trial Court had dismissed the suit on 23.1.1993. However, the appellate Court in Appeal No.5/1993 � Poonam Chand V/s Lal Chand allowed the appeal of the landlord and while affirming the findings of the trial Court on vaious grounds found that there was first default committed by the tenant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, the trial Court giving benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Act refused to grant eviction decree. He, therefore, submitted that the parties were bound by the principles of Res Judicata and the decree of eviction on same grounds could not be given in favour of the respondents � plaintiffs � landlords in subsequent suit i.e. the presnet suit No.101/2002. He also submitted that in absence of first default being proved by the plaintiffs, the decree could not be granted inter alia on the ground of second default committed by the defendant -tenant. He, therefore, submitted that substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. On the other hand Mr. Vijay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent � plaintiff � landlord submitted that from the appellate Court decision dtd.24.1.2001 in the previous suit No.21/1985, it is clear that the first default in payment of rent by the defendant tenant for the preiod from 1.9.1984 to 30.11.1985 was committed by the defendant. However, giving benefit of first default as per Section 13(6) of the Act, the eviction decree was not granted in favour of the plaintiffs � respondents. He submitted that second default committed by the defendant � tenant in respect of suit premises was for subsequent period, namely, 1.12.1992 to 30.1.2001 as stated in para 5 (A) of the plaint and even thereafter the defendant � tenant has never paid any rent to the respondent landlord and therefore, the second default has been established by the plaintiffs � respondents on which the leanred Courts below were bound to pass the eviction decree and have rightly passed the same. He also urged that the earlier suit was for eviction of tenant from one room constructed by him unauthorisedly on the plot of land which belonged to the plaintiff , but later on he constructed two more rooms and latrine and bathroom on the said plot of land and thus had caused substantial damage and material alteration on the suit property of the plaintiff and it was subsequent fact after the previous suit was filed and decided by the court below and consequently, the decree on that ground is also sustainable. He urged that no substantial question of law arises on the findings of facts returned by the learned court below, which are based on relevant and cogent evidence and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 100 C.P.C. by this Court.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record of the case.;