Skip to content


Smt. Kishan Bai and ors. Vs. Pooran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 198 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)9
AppellantSmt. Kishan Bai and ors.
RespondentPooran
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredJ.C. Chatterjee and Ors. v. Shri Sri Kishan Taodon and Anr.
Excerpt:
.....act, 1950 - section 13a and amendment ordinance, 1975--legal representative--after amendment legal representative are entitled to protection under the act--eviction decree of appellate court set aside. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with.....m.l. shrimal, j.1. this is an appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant-tenant harishanker since deceased.2. it arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff landlord to the court of additional munsiff magistrate no. 3, kota. the suit was originally filed against harishanker. the suit for ejectment was based on the ground of reasonable bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. the suit was dismissed by the trial court on april 10, 1969 an appeal was preferred by the landlord which was transferred to the additional civil judge no. 1, kota and the same was registered as civil appeal no. 12/1973 during the pendency of the appeal the defendant harishanker died. the surviving heirs, in accordance with law were brought on the, record as legal representatives in the.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant-tenant Harishanker since deceased.

2. It arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff landlord to the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 3, Kota. The suit was originally filed against Harishanker. The suit for ejectment was based on the ground of reasonable bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on April 10, 1969 An appeal was preferred by the landlord which was transferred to the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota and the same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 12/1973 During the pendency of the appeal the defendant Harishanker died. The surviving heirs, in accordance with law were brought on the, record as legal representatives in the case. The appellate court held that the legal representatives of the respondent before that that court were not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 17 of 1950) The law on this point stood well settled by a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.C. Chatterjee and Ors. v. Shri Sri Kishan Taodon and Anr. : [1973]1SCR850 . The Civil fudge accepted the appeal and decreed the suit by the impugned judgment. Hence this second appeal by the legal representatives of Harishanker - original tenant.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that in view of Section 3 as well as Sub-clause (d) and (e) of Section 13A of the Act No. 17 of 1950 as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Amendment Ordinance, 1975 the decree passed by the appellate court cannot be maintained and the same may be set aside The learned Counsel for the respondent agrees to this proposition of law and in my opinion rightly so.

4. The appeal is accepted, and the judgment and decree dated January 29, 1974 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota is set aside and the case is remanded back to the court of learned District Judge, Kota who may either hear she appeal himself or send it to any other court for a decision in accordance with law The parties will bear their CWD costs of this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //