NISHA GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant -appellants u/S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 16/07/2014 passed by Additional District Judge Rajgarh, Alwar whereby, it has dismissed Civil Appeal No.18/2013 filed by the defendant -appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30/03/2013 by which, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajgarh, District Alwar has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal in brief are that plaintiff -respondents filed a civil suit with the averments that on 05/11/1989 for a rent of Rs.504/ - per month, the property was rented to the appellants. A notice u/S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served upon the defendant -appellants to vacate the shop.
(3.) THE defendant -appellants filed written statement and submitted that the shop is in the ownership of Mandir Sitaramji Maharaj and plaintiff could not file suit. Both the courts below have dismissed the contention of the appellants. Hence, this second appeal. The first contention of the appellants is that property belongs to Mandir Sitaramji Maharaj and hence, plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that admittedly, appellants are paying rent to the respondent. They took the premises on rent from him and looking to the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, he is estopped from raising this plea and otherwise also, question of ownership of the property is foreign in the suits for eviction and courts below have rightly decided Issue No.1 in their favour.;