Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL defendant is the appellant in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.07.2010, passed by Addl. District Judge, Nathdwara (learned lower appellate Court), whereby the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nathdwara (learned trial Court).
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts are that on 17.05.1997 respondent -plaintiff Shree Nathdwara Mandir Mandal instituted a suit in the learned trial Court for possession and recovery of rent against appellant -defendant Bhupendra Kumar with the averments that the land of Nathuwas Petrol Pump measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa of its ownership and possession was taken by defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 100 for 11 months on 01.10.1986 and after completion of 11 months defendant became a tenant but as the Temple Board was not interested in continuing the tenancy, defendant's tenancy was terminated on 30.11.1996 by notice dated 28.10.1996. It was further averred that even after termination of tenancy, defendant neither handed over possession of tenanted plot to the plaintiff nor made payment of due rent as such the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plot and outstanding rent amounting to Rs. 2,000/ - for 20 months from 01.04.1995 to 30.11.1996. In the plaint, a sum of Rs. 550 was also claimed as damages @ Rs. 100 per month for use and occupation of the plot for the period from 30.11.1996 till filing of the suit. Accordingly, prayer was made for decreeing the suit for eviction of defendant, possession of plaintiff and for payment of due rent, costs etc. Resisting the suit, defendant filed written statement denying the averments of plaint and stated that the disputed piece of land is situated in Khasra No. 461 of village Nathuwas on which petrol pump existed since 1950 and was earlier on rent with one Ram Chandra, Proprietor of Lavati Brothers, which was taken by him on rent in the year 1986 from the Temple Board. According to him, previously property vested in Thikana Nathdwara and after constitution of Temple Board, Nathdwara, it vested in it. It was stated by defendant that he came to know about vesting of property in State Government by virtue of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 and therefore since 1990 he has paid lease money to the State Government from time to time as per demand. An objection was raised that the disputed land is agricultural land, which is recorded in the name of State Government in revenue records as its Khatedar, as such only the Revenue Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit. It was also contended that the plaintiff has no right or authority to terminate tenancy after coming into force of the Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 as the disputed land thereafter vested in State Govt. and after State becoming owner of the land in question, plaintiff has no authority to terminate tenancy. It was pointed out that as the land in dispute is claimed by Temple Board as well as State as its owner, he has filed an interpleader suit under Section 88 CPC. Defendant prayed for staying proceedings in the suit filed by plaintiff Temple Board and deciding the suit in light of interpleader suit.
(3.) ON the above pleadings five issues were framed by the learned trial Court for determination. On plaintiff's side, witnesses P.W. 1 Sajjan Singh, PW2 Jamna Das, PW3 Amba Lal Paliwal were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked. Defendant -appellant Bhupendra Kumar examined himself as D.W. 1 and one witness Sitaram Kumar was examined as D.W. 2. The documents marked on defendant's side were Ex. D1 to D17.;