- (1.) JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-81995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 253/1995 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds :- (a) default in payment of rent; and (b) denial of title. A suit was filed on 21-11-1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the plaint it was specifically averred by the plaintiff that he had let out a portion of the premises in dispute which is situated opposite All India Radio, M.I. Road, Jaipur on 1-2-1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/vide a registered rent deed which was duly executed between the parties on 25-2-1981. The agreed rent was excluding house-tax, water and electricity charges. Since the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for the period 31-2-82 to March, 1983 and this default committed in tendering the rent to the plaintiff was for a period exceeding six months, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant through his counsel on 19-3-1983 whereby the tenancy of the defendant was terminated and he was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises subject to clearing the rent due. It was further averred in the plaint that some negotiation with regard to the payment of rent took place between the parties it Delhi, as a result of which on 21-4-83 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- towards rent by cheque to the plaintiff for the period ending January, 1983. Subsequently when the plaintiff read the covering letter attached to the cheque to be realised that the payment of rent was made conditional, since in the letter the plaintiff was asked to submit his title deeds and also a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid to the plaintiff as security by the defendant as per the terms incorporated in the rent deed. Thereafter the plaintiff again sent another notice claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises but the defendant-appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit premises. During the hearing of the suit the defendant thought of a novel idea by disputing the title of the landlord and it is under these circumstances that the plaintiffrespondent was compelled to file the eviction suit which was decreed against the defendantappellant whereby the trial Court directed the recovery of the rent dues of Rs. 14,278. 75 and also directed the defendant to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 166.75 per month to the plaintiff till the vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiff and also directed eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on both the grounds, i.e., default in payment of rent and denial of title.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant before the trial Court, it was contended inter-alia that a lease agreement was executed between the parties and registered on 25-2-1981 and the premises was handed over to the defendant by the father of the plaintiff Late Dr. V. Ratan. It was further contained in the written statement that terms and conditions of the said lease agreement were also settled by Late Dr. V. Ratan - who inducted the defendant into the possession of the suit premises, but since Dr. V. Ratan was of old age and was not in good health he had requested the defendant to execute the lease agreement in favour of his son Raj Kumar Seth, respondent herein. It was further contended by the defendant that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was also paid towards the security to the plaintiff as per the instructions of Late Dr. V. Ratan against a valid receipt. It was further contended by the defendant that Dr. V. Ratan expired in February, 1983 and thereafter his second son namely, Ram Ratan sent communication to the defendant enclosing a copy of the Will of Late Dr. V. Ratan under which the suit premises had fallen to his share and henceforth the rent should be paid to him. When his request was not adhered to he again sent another communication to the defendant that if the rent was not paid, he would file a civil suit against the defendant at his cost and consequence, hence a bona fide dispute was created as to whom the rent should be paid which compelled the defendant to send a communication to the plaintiff to clarify the position in this regard as to which legal heir the rent should be paid. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent as alleged? 2. Whether the demand made by the defendant regarding proof of ownership in respect of the suit property amounts to denial of title of the plaintiff? 3. Relief?;