Skip to content


Manakchand Son of Tolaram Vs. Smt. Maghi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 541 of 1964
Judge
Reported in1971WLN(UC)17
AppellantManakchand Son of Tolaram
RespondentSmt. Maghi and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....reasonable and bonafide necessity proved.;the alleged necessity for the shop for doing sharafi business was not alleged in the plaint. it also found that the plaintiff had never carried on such business' at all in the past and had not started the business upto the date of the recording his evidence. he had not disclosed the alleged necessity for shop for sharafi business in examination-in-chief and contented himself by merely stating that he requires the shop for his own use. it is only in the course of cross-examination that he had disclosed that he wanted to start sharifi business in the shop in dispute the first appellate court was, in my opioion, right in not accepting the plaintiff's case regarding his alleged personal necessity for the shop in question. - section 2(k),..........out that even, according to the plaintiff himself, the agreement between the parties was to pay rent yearly, and so far as yearly payment is concerned, admittedly no default has occurred. what is contended on behalf of the appellants is that no yearly tenancy could be created in the eye of law for want of registered lease deed and therefore, the tenancy will be deemed to be monthly and consequently it was the duty of the tenant to have paid rent month to month. the contention, in my opinion is not well founded. section 19a of the rajasthan premises control of rent and eviction act, 1950 clearly lays down that:(1) every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by the contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it.....
Judgment:

C.M. Lodha, J.

1. This is a plaintiff land-lord's second appeal from the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Bikaner for arrears of rent and ejectment. Arrears of rent are not in dispute and the question involved for decision is regarding ejectment. The subject-matter of dispute is a shop situated in the town Churu. Tenancy is admitted by the defendant-respondent. The suit for ejectment was based on two grounds viz:

(1) Default in payment of rent, and

(2) Reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the land-lord to carry on his own business.

The defendants-tenants denied to have committed any default in payment of rent and further pleaded that the plaintiff had no bonafide and reasonable personal necessity for the shop. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment. The defendants filed appeal which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. Consequently the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

2. So far as the question of personal necessity is concerned, admittedly the re is the lone statement of the plaintiff. He has stated that he requires the shop in question to do Sharafi business and also for dealing in jewellery. The learned first appellate court did not believe the plaintiff's statement, firstly because the alleged necessity for the shop for doing sharafi business was rot alleged in the plaint. It also found that the plaintiff had never carried on such business at all in the past and had not started the business upto the date of the recording his evidence. On going through the statement of the plaintiff Manak Chand I further find that he had not disclosed the alleged necessity for the shop for Sharafi business in his examination-in-chief and contented himself by merely stating that he requires the shop for his own use. It is only in the course of cross-examination that he has disclosed that he wanted to start Sharafi business in the shop in dispute. Admittedly, he has no experience either of Sharafi business or of the business of jewellery. In these circumstances the first appellate court was, in my opinion, right in not accepting the plaintiff's case regarding his alleged personal necessity for the shop in question.

3. As to the allegation regarding the default in payment of rent, it is sufficient to point out that even, according to the plaintiff himself, the agreement between the parties was to pay rent yearly, and so far as yearly payment is concerned, admittedly no default has occurred. What is contended on behalf of the appellants is that no yearly tenancy could be created in the eye of law for want of registered lease deed and therefore, the tenancy will be deemed to be monthly and consequently it was the duty of the tenant to have paid rent month to month. The contention, in my opinion is not well founded. Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 clearly lays down that:

(1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by the contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable.

The nature of the tenancy, whether it was yearly or whether it Was monthly is wholly immaterial in the present case. It is not disputed that according to the terms of the contract between the parties rent was to be paid yearly. It it not the plaintiff's case that tenant did not pay or tender the yearly rent due for 6 months. In this view of the matter, the defendent respondents can not be said to have committed any default in payment of rent.

4. In the result, I do not see any force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it. But in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.


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