GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS is the second appeal by the legal heirs of the defendant-tenant Shri Rameshwar against the judgment and decree dated 18. 12. 2002 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu while setting aside the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawalgarh dismissing the suit on 10. 9. 1997, decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs-Ladhu Ram and his son Nand Kishore filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction in November, 1987 against the defendant-tenant Rameshwar with the averments that suit shop situated in Nawalgarh Town was let-out to the defendant in Samvat 2037 (year 1980) on monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. THE eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alteration. Vide written statement submitted in January, 1988 the defendant having admitted the tenancy since last 30 years denied the grounds of eviction. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit shop. Rather Smt. Durga Devi and after her death her son Chaturbhuj is the owner of the shop. Vide amended plaint filed in May, 1992 additional ground of eviction on account of denial of title was taken. Vide amended written statement it was pleaded that since the plaintiffs have not produced the document of title and the defendant has got the proof of the title of the shop in other person, the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit for eviction. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 8 issues. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 10. 9. 1997 held that the defendant committed default in payment of rent but being the first default decree of eviction on this ground cannot be passed. Issue No. 2 of material alteration and issue No. 3 of denial of title were decided against the plaintiffs, hence the suit was dismissed. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed vide impugned judgment. It was held that since the defendant-tenant has denied the title of the plaintiffs, decree of eviction was passed. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Ladhu Ram expired and during the pendency of the second appeal the defendant-tenant Shri Rameshwar died, hence their legal representatives were brought on record.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 3 (iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) defines the term `landlord' as under:- (iii) "landlord" means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant. Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act is as under:- Section 13 Eviction of tenants:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, eviction the tenant so long as he is ready and wiling to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied- (f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; It is not in dispute that the defendant did not renounce his character as tenant. Rather he admitted in the written statement that he is the tenant of the plaintiffs and he has paid and in paying the rent to them. The relevant question is whether the defendant has denied the title of the landlords/plaintiffs and the landlords have not waived their right or condoned the conduct of the defendant-tenant? ;