Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-Smt. Shanta W/o late Dr. Hemchand aggrieved by the rejection of her suit (Civil Original Suit No. 43/2005 : Smt. Shanta v. Kashiram & Anr.) by the Trial Court of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner on 18.07.2009. The suit aforesaid was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession and in the alternative for ejection of the defendants.
(2.) The learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit on 18.07.2009, while recording the following findings:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) The learned counsel Mr. Salil Trivedi on behalf of Mr. Sajjan Singh appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the defendant-respondent No. 1-Kashiram and the respondent-defendant No. 2-Dhuraram are the real brothers being the sons of Ladhuram. The suit shop in question was taken by the defendant No. 2-Dhuraram for few months and, therefore, in fact, the defendant No. 2-Dhuraram is the tenant of the plaintiff Smt. Shanta. It is also submitted that the possession of the suit shop was handed over to the landlady-Smt. Shanta and thereafter, the defendant No. 1-Kashiram forcibly entered into the shop (No.24) in question which is situated at Jai Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner which was earlier taken by the plaintiff from the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner on lease. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent of the suit shop deposited under Section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control & Eviction) Act, 1950 by the defendant No. 2 has wrongly been construed by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has erred in finding that there was the relationship of landlady-tenant qua the defendant No. 1- Kashiram and for this reason, the suit filed by the plaintiff-Smt. Shanta had been dismissed.;