VINEET KOTHARI,J. - (1.) THE eviction suit of 1982 in the present second appeals, which was itself the second round of litigation, and the first eviction suit of the year 1969 filed by the landlord/plaintiff although decided in favour of landlord, however, no decree of eviction was granted on account of amendment in law of insertion of Section 13A in the Act of 1950 and giving the benefit of first default in payment of rent, no eviction was directed but the present suit of the year 1982 came to be decreed by the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhinmal, District: Jalore on 08.07.2006, after 24 years of trial. The first appellate court, however, took two years to decide the appeal but setting aside the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court, allowed the defendants/tenants' appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 and thus the appellants/plaintiffs were required to file the present two second appeals under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, in which the cross -objector (Bhura Ram) has also filed his cross objections, though with delay, being Civil Cross Objection No.2/2012 in CSA No.210/2008 and all these three cases are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE present suit also had a chequered history and the burden of arguments raised on behalf of defendants/tenants, mainly the sub -tenant, Bhura Ram, the real brother of original tenant, namely, late Sh. Sankal Chand, and so also the cross objection filed by Bhura Ram, was to convert this eviction suit under the Rent Control Law into a title suit and that is what Mr. Om Mehta, learned counsel for the Cross -Objector (Bhura Ram) tried his level best to do; but as the well settled legal position is that question of title is not relevant in rent control eviction cases, and once the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and established before the trial court on the own admission of the original tenant, late Sh. Sankal Chand of having executed the Rent -Note (Exhibit -1), was established, the entire effort of Mr. Om Mehta, to argue the case on behalf of Bhura Ram that he was not a sub -tenant of his real brother, but was the owner of the portion of the tenanted plot of land, in which he used to run his workshop as carpenter under the name of M/s Vishwakarma Industries was an exercise of futility. Neither any question of law has been framed by the coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the present second appeals of the plaintiffs/landlord, nor such question of law as per settled legal position of law on the issue of question of title can be decided in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950.
(3.) THE factual matrix in nutshell, as narrated in the order of the learned trial court dated 18.07.2006 is as infra. The suit premises, a plot of land measuring 1620 square yards 54'x120' = 6480 Square Ft., divided by 4 = 1620 Square Yards (1 yard = 2'x2'). , is situated at Railway Station Road, Bhinmal, District: Jalore. The said plot of land was jointly owned by S/Sh. Pratapmal S/o Hastimal and Bhabootmal S/o Oakhraj, and after the death of Pratapmal, his portion was sold by his legal representatives, namely, Pukhraj, Bhupatmal and Mst. Bhanwari D/o late Sh. Pratapmal, in favour of plaintiff No.2, Jawantraj S/o Shivraj and plaintiff No.2, Champalal S/o Jawantraj, on 23.07.1981. The Exhibit -1 is the Rent -note, which was executed on 09.03.1964 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Hastimal S/o Sh. Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Bastimal, for a monthly rent of Rs.13.50 per month by the original defendant/tenant Sankal Chand S/o Nopaji Suthar. Sankal Chand and Bhura Ram, are sons of Sh. Nopaji Suthar and the original tenant, Sankal Chand died on 16.04.1979 and is now represented by his legal heirs, Hansraj, Manaram, Jassaram, Babulal, all sons of late Sankal Chand, and Smt. Oti Wd/o late Sankal Chand, Mst. Shanta D/o Sankalchand. The defendant No.7, Bhuraram S/o Nopaji was also impleaded in the eviction suit as sub -tenant. Initially, the suit No.8/1969 was filed by Pratapmal for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent before the court of learned Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal, against the original tenant, Sankal Chand, on the basis of Rent -note (Ex.1) dated 09.03.1964, which was decreed on 14.11.1973 and the same was upheld by the appellate court on 25.02.1975, rejecting objections raised by the defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand that the civil court had no jurisdiction since the land in question was an agricultural land and, therefore, the revenue court had the jurisdiction and that there was any insertion in the rent note dated 09.03.1964 about the word that a "Chhapra" (??? ) was kept in the possession of the landlord. That suit having been decreed, was not executed on account of amendment in law inserting Section 13A in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') and, therefore, the benefit of first default was extended to the tenant and eviction was not directed and that is why a fresh eviction suit came to be filed by the landlord, being Civil Original Suit No.22/1982, inter -alia, on the ground of bona fide need of the suit premises for landlord and his family members, material alterations in the suit property, sub -letting of the part of the suit property by original tenant, Sankal Chand in favour of his real brother, namely, Bhura Ram. It was alleged that the defendant had large chunk of land on Raniwada road in Bhinmal itself, where they had their residential house with large chunk of open land on which they could shift their workshop of carpenter and thus the eviction deserves to be granted in favour of landlord and since the tenancy was terminated by serving a notice upon them on 05.10.1981 with effect from 01.12.1981.;