Sri Kishan vs Smt. Shanta Aazad

Kailash Chandra Joshi

This civil second appeal has been preferred by appellant-defendant Sri Kishan against respondent-plaintiff Smt. Shanta Aazad being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura in Civil Appeal Decree No. 14/2011, whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for eviction. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant-defendant. It was averred in the plaint that the appellant-defendant has been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises, which is a garage type room with tean-shed roof. The rate of rent was fixed as Rs. 500/- per month. It is further averred in the plaint that the appellant has sublet the suit premises to his son and further for the period from August 1994 to September 1996, the appellant-defendant has committed default in payment of rent.

The appellant-defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was averred that the rent has been regularly paid to the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant is working in the suit premises with his son Rajendra as Carpentar. It is averred that the appellant-defendant never committed default in payment of rent.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the six issues. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments, the learned trial court decided the issues and vide the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 decreed the suit for eviction. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellant-defendant preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal vide the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2011.

Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, the appellant-defendant has preferred this civil second appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that the learned lower appellate court as well as the learned trial court have failed to consider the deposition of the rent u/s 19A of the Rent Control Act and wrongly struck down the defence against eviction u/s 13(6) of the Act. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside.

The learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal :

(i)Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is passed on conjecture and surmises ?

(ii)Whether the defence against eviction U/s 13 (6) can be struck of despite the rent has been duly paid in the Bank Account of the land lord respondent ?

(iii)Whether when the payment of rent U/s 19 A of the Act of 1950 has been complied with, the defence of appellant against eviction can be struck of ?

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. From perusal of the judgment of the court below, it appears that first default was committed by the appellant in the year 1994 and the second default was committed by him when he failed to deposit the amount of rent determined by the trial court because instead of depositing the amount of rent monthly, he deposited some of the amount on yearly basis. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts regarding the default and the suit was decreed on the ground of default. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being bereft of any merit as there are concurrent findings of facts.

Consequently, this civil second appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are affirmed. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent.