- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the Additional Commissions Jaipur dated 31. 1. 56 filed by the defendant against whom the suit for recovery of arrears of rent for Svt. years 2008 and 2009 was dismissed by the trial court, the appellate court having decreed the same.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector, Karauli on 29. 4. 1954 with the allegation that the land in dispute was given for cultivation to the defendant in Svt. year 2004 for three years for an annual rent of Rs. 2007- ; that he paid the rent for Svt. 2004 and 2005 and when he failed to pay rent for Svt. years 2036 and 2007, a suit for arrears was filed which was decreed, the decree being upheld in two appeals as well, that the decretal amount was recovered, that the defendant again failed to pay the rent for Svt. years 2008 and 2009 and therefore, the plaintiffs had to bring the present suit. The claim was denied by the defendant appellant with the plea that he had surrendered the land in Svt. 2006, that the land under dispute, was in muafi of the respondents, that it had been resumed by the Jagirdar as the respondents failed to render service or pay the annual khandi, and that since 2006 the Jagirdar had been cultivating the same, The trial court held that the land under dispute having been resumed by the thikana and taken over, the appellant cannot be held liable for the rent and dismissal the suit. The appellate court held that it has not been proved that the Muafi has been resumed by the Thikana Amargarh and the appellant being the Kamdar of the thikana had joined hands with the jagirdar in depriving the respondents of the benefit of land under dispute and as no surrender or relinquishment of the land had been established, the suit of the respondents was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree of the lower appellate court that an appeal has been filed before us. The case of the appellant is that he took the land under dispute for cultivation on an annual rent of Rs. 200/- in Svt. 2004 but he surrendered the same in Svt. 2005. It is admitted by him that he gave notice of surrender in writing but conveyed the same verbally. No evidence has been produced to prove that the land was surrendered. He further contends that the land under dispute was given in Muafi to the respondents by Thikana Amargarh and as the Muafidar failed to comply with the terms of the grant, the same was resumed by the Thikana in Svt. 2006 who took over possession of the same in the year. In support of this plea he has produced the jagirdar of Amargarh in evidence who corroborates this plea. The Thakur, however, admits that he neither brought any suit for resumption of Muafi nor obtained any order of competent authority for the same. It may be mentioned here that a notice for resumption of Muafi was given only a few weeks prior to the institution of this suit for arrears of rent and hence it follows that there can be no question of resumption during the period for which arrears of rent are claimed. The respondent's contention is that the appellant continues to be the tenant of bis land as he never relinquished the same and therefore his liability to pay rent continues. It is further argued that the appellant is the Kamdar of Thikana Amargarh and in order to benefit the jagirdar, he has surreptitiously joined hands with him to put him to unnecessary loss. The main plea of the appellant is that his liability to pay rent came to an end with his relinquishment of the tenancy and that the respondents' right to recover rent determined with the resumption of the Muafi grant by the Thikana. From the evidence on record, we find no substance in the plea of surrender put up by the appellant. He admits having been in possession of the land as a duly admitted tenant in Svt. 2004 and 2005. The suit for arrears of rent of Svt. 2006 and 2007 was decreed against the appellant as be was found to be holding over as a tenant during these years and his plea of surrender in Svt. year 2006 was found to be untenable, as there was no evidence to corroborate the same. Under the Karauli State Revenue Code, 1912, it has been laid down in sec. 17, Chapter 9 that if a sub tenant desires to relinquish his tenancy, be must file an application to this effect at the Tehsil on a four anna stamp paper before the end of Chait, but no such procedure was followed. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 also the essential requirement is to give up possession in writing attested by Sarpanch or headman of the village etc. The plea of resumption of Muafi grant by Thikana Amargarh is irrelevant for purposes of the present suit as pointed above. The appellant's plea that the Thikana is in possession of the land in dispute does not deserve any serious consideration. If it be a fact, it would obviously mean that the defendant handed over possession to the Thikana or acquiesced in recovery of possession by the Thikana. In either case his liability as a tenant does not come to an end. In the absence of eviction by title paramount or valid attornment thereto, a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however, defective it may be, so long as be has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. A number of authorities have been noted in Munir's Law of Evidence page 1009 in support of this proposition. The appellant did not ever surrender possession to the respondents nor did he care to recover possession if he was dispossessed wrongfully. Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot be absolved of the responsibility to pay the arrears of rent. We, therefore, find no substance in the appeal which is hereby rejected. .;