SHOBHA RAM Vs. LRS OF UMMED MAL & ANR
LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-206
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 11,2012

SHOBHA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
Lrs Of Ummed Mal And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This civil second appeal filed by appellantdefendant No.1 Shobha Ram is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Appeal No.19/2010 (16/2008) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur in Civil Suit No.12/2001, whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellantdefendant No.1 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondentplaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Ummed Mal and members of joint Hindu family and plaintiff No.1 Smt. Suman Devi is the Karta of the family. With the consent and knowledge of the other plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 filed a suit for eviction of garage and recovery of the rent of Rs.15300/- from the appellantdefendant. It was averred in the suit that there is a garage and house of the ownership of the plaintiffs at Falna Circle in Sanderao, which was taken on rent by appellant-defendant No.1 Shobha Ram and Chaina Ram, the father of the proforma respondent-defendant No.2 in the year 1982-83 at rent of Rs.425/- per month and the performa respondent Suresh Kumar continued to pay rent even after death of his father Chaina Ram. It is further averred that the defendants also took a room adjoining to the garage on rent of Rs.250/- per month and the rent of entire premises was fixed as Rs.675/- per month. It is averred that the defendants stopped paying rent of the garage from 01.03.1994 and the rent of the room from 01.09.1996 and even after making demands and writing letters, the defendants did not pay rent, then the plaintiff terminated their tenancy and sent legal notice to the defendants through their counsel, but even then the defendants did not pay the rent, therefore, the suit was filed.
(3.) It was also stated in the plaint that the defendants have done material alteration in the premises and further averments regarding personal necessity have also been pleaded.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.