- (1.) This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 135/2011 (285/2006) confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 431/81 (130/93) whereby decree for eviction has been passed in favour of plaintiff respondent.
(2.) The contention of the appellant is that on mere recital in the sale deed Ex.1, suit has been filed. There is no relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. Ex.1, sale deed has been executed on 18.4.81 but it has been recorded in register only on 15.5.81 and prior to the registration, the sale could not be treated complete and no rights devolve to the respondent but notice has been served on him only on 18.4.81. Godown shop and residential premises have been let out to him but the suit has been filed only for shop. Splitting up the tenancy is not allowed, it was obligatory on the part of courts below to give a finding under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent but no such finding has been recorded and decree has been passed which is a nullity, hence the appeal be admitted. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that issue of ownership is not at all relevant in a suit for eviction. Issue No. 1, 2 and 6 have been categorically answered by the courts below concurrently against the appellant. Since 2006 he has not paid any money. More than Rs. 10 lac are outstanding against the appellant and from the above facts it is clear that the appellant is not ready and willing to pay the rent, hence no protection could be given to him. Vide Ex. 2 notice has been served on him by earlier land lord and when rent has not been paid, after the registered sale deed Ex.5 dated 27.11.1981, notice has been served to the land lord in which earlier notice has also been referred. Both the notices have been received by the appellant. Respondent is the successor of the previous owner, he is land lord for the purpose of Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 and courts below have rightly decreed the suit and the appeal is not worth admission.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decree as well as original record and copies of the exhibits and documents submitted by the counsel for the parties.;