JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The present second appeal has been filed by the
appellants-plaintiffs-landlord in this Court on 06.09.1994 aggrieved
by the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate court of
Additional District Judge, No.2, Jodhpur allowing defendant-tenant's
first appeal being Civil Appeal No.36/94- Mohan Lal S/o
Moolchand Vs. Sampat Raj and Devraj, both sons of Sh.
Kanhaiyalal. The learned lower appellate court below reversed the
judgment and eviction decree dated 17.02.1994 passed by learned
trial court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, District Jodhpur
in Civil Suit No.1/87- Sampat Raj & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal, which
was filed in respect of suit premises, a residential house, situated in
"Dhooton-ka-Mohalla", Pipar City, Jodhpur, which was initially let-out
to the defendant-tenant way back on 24.08.1979 for a monthly rent
of Rs.11/- only.
(2.)The learned trial court, inter-alia, had decreed the
eviction suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground grounds
specified in Section 13 (1) (i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of
rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act
of 1950') on the ground that alternative accommodation had become
available to the defendant-tenant as he purchased a residential
house in the same locality, namely, "Dhooton-ka-Mohalla", Pipar City
in the name of his wife, namely, Smt. Sohini Devi on 06.03.1987 by a
registered sale-deed for Rs.26,880/-, Exhibit-4 on record. The
defence of the tenant, Mohan Lal that he was not in good terms with
his wife and was living separately from his wife, was not believed by
the learned trial court and the learned trial court held that for
purchasing the house in the name of his wife, since money for such
purchase was paid by the defendant-tenant himself and the registry
of the house only was done in the name of his wife, relying upon the
evidence of PW.1, namely, Manmal Chordia (power of attorney
holder of the appellants-plaintiffs) and PW.2, namely, Amrit Lal (who
sold the house to the defendant-tenant's wife Smt. Sohini Devi), the
learned trial court granted the eviction decree in favour of landlord.
(3.)The learned lower appellate court below, however,
allowed the appeal of the defendant-tenant and reversing the finding
on Issue No.5, held that the husband and wife are two independent
entities and disbelieving the evidence of PW.1, Manmal Chordia and
PW.2 Amrit Lal, the learned lower appellate court held that even
though the defendant-tenant failed to produce his wife, Smt. Sohini
Devi, before the learned trial court as a witness, it could not be said
that merely with the purchase of the residential house in her name,
such alternative accommodation had become available to the
defendant-tenant and consequently, the learned trial court was not
justified in passing the eviction decree and appeal of the defendanttenant was thus liable to be allowed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.