S.P.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur, the defendant - appellant has approached this Court by filing the present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) The learned Trial Court by its order decreed the suit against defendant- appellant to the effect : (1) Plaintiff has the right to get vacant and actual peaceful possession of the two shops in questions, the details of which has been described in Para No. 1 of the plaint. Two months' time is allowed for the purpose and after that the plaintiff shall have the right to get the possession of the suit shops through Court. (2) Plaintiff is entitled to receive due rent Rs. 29,445/- from the defendant. (3) Plaintiff shall be entitled to get Rs. 2,265/- per month as mesne profits for use and occupation till getting possession of the disputed shops from defendant No. 1 but she will have to pay additional Court fees on this amount. (4) That the plaintiff is entitled to get the expenses of suit from defendant No. 1.
(3.) The plaintiff, who filed the suit before District Judge, Jodhpur on 29.10.1993 for arrears of rent and eviction against defendant, after detailing location of the suit property, inter alia, stated that the disputed shop Nos. 2 and 3 were taken on rent by the defendant from Mr. Keshav Singh Sankhala at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,265/- excluding electricity charges and house-tax and he agreed to pay the rent amount month by month. Earlier two receipts were used to be issued for these two shops but by consent of the parties, the wall in between these two shops was removed and it became one unit. It was further stated that the earlier owner of these two rented shop Nos. 2 and 3 sold these two shops to the plaintiff for a consideration of 1,60,000/- on 2.9.1992 through a registered sale-deed, handed over the legal ownership to her and the seller gave information of sale of these shops to the defendant by his letter dated 28.10. 1992 sent through Registered A.O. and asked him to pay rent to the plaintiff from the date of sale. Plaintiff also sent a notice on 3.11.1992 through her advocate mentioning about purchase of the suit property and asked for payment of rent to her. Although the defendant received both the notices but he neither replied to the notices nor paid the rent, however by the information to defendant the relationship of landlady and tenant came into existence in between the plaintiff and the defendant.;