Dismissed

Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mal

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2015CSA/191/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by a tenant against a concurrent eviction decree passed on the ground of denial of title. The tenant produced a registered gift deed by which the landlord had transferred the suit shop to a relative years earlier and argued his right to evict was extinguished. Held: a lessor who continues to receive rent remains a landlord and may seek eviction; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; appellant directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises by 31.12.2015 and to pay mesne profits at Rs.2,000 per month from April 2015, clearing arre

Smt. Geeta Devi Vs Dr. Surendra Mal — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶2

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶3

1 of 33

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

::: J U D G M E N T :::

¶6

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013

¶7

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

Date of Judgment

::: 10/03/2015 .

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶14

REPORTABLE

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

Mr. B.M. Bhojak, for the appellant/defendant/tenant.

¶17

¶18

BY THE COURT :

¶19

The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No.12/2008- Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Dr. Surendra Mal Mertiya , was dismissed, affirming the

¶20

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015

¶21

2 of 33

¶22

judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No.129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi , whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950'), was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10^th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶23

The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No.5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: -

¶24

“तनक� स�ख�� : 1 - आ�� व�द� व पततव�द�न� पक क� मध� व�दगसत पर�स� क� सम�न� म� भ! - सव�म� व कक��द�� क� सम�न� ह$?

¶25

इस तनक� क& स�ब�त क�न� क� भ�� व�द� प� थ�। इन तनक� क� सम�न� म� उसन� अपन� स�श&ध�त व�द पत क� पद स�ख�� 2 म� कथन कक�� ह$ कक उसक� ममल1क�त क� ववव�दगसत द3क�न म� पततव�द�न� �ह$मस�त कक��द�� ह$ तथ� पद स�ख�� 5-ए म� �ह व�क कक�� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� द�� व�द� स� सव8पथम ददन��क 15.07.1974 क& द3क�न कक�� प� ल� गई थ�। वह उस� सव8पथम स�ख�� 7 ददन��क 23.10.1974 क� द�� त�न म�ह क� कक�� क� �स�द द� गई थ�।

¶26

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶27

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶28

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶29

3 of 33

¶30

ज�कक इस सम�न� म� पततव�द�न� द�� अपन� स�श&ध�त जव�� द�व� क� पद स�ख�� द& म� अ�ककत कक�� ग�� ह$ कक उसन� ववव�दगसत द3क�न स3म � मल म�ड?तत�� स� 28-29 वर8 प!व8 कक�� प� ल� थ� औ� कक�� उमम�द मल म�?तत�� औ� न��नB म�?तत�� न� �तC� मक�न म�मलक प�प कक�� थ�। पद स�ख�� 5-ए म� इन तथ�F क& गलत �त�� ह$ कक उसन� ददन��क 15.7.1974 क& द3क�न कक�� प� ल� ह& औ� 3 म�ह क� कक�� अद� क� �स�द स�ख�� 7 ददन��क 23.10.1974 क& प�प क� ह&।

¶31

इस तनक� क� सम�न� म� उभ� पकF क� स�क� क� अवल&कन क�� त& व�द� प� डब1�3 1 ड�कK� स3��नB म�?तत�� न� व�द पत क� तथ�F क� ह!�ह! त�ईद क�त� ह3ए अपन� म3ख� प��क� म� व�क कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न सदहत समप!र8 पलNK स�ख�� 601 �� क& उसक� वपत� श� स3म � मल म�?तत�� न� �ह$मस�त कत�8 ख�नद�न एव� म$न�ज� स � 3क दहनद! पर�व�� क� सनQ 1973 म� जर�� लजसKड8 ववक� पत ददन��क 23.06.1973 पदश8 -1 क� ख��द कक�� थ� उस समपवS क& सनQ 1974 म� ��Kव�� ह& ग�� थ� ततपश�तQ व�द� एव� उसक� भ�ई न��नB म�?तत�� क� ��K म� आ�� समपवS क� प3न: प�ज�कV त मलखखत ��Kव�� कक�� ज& पदश8-2 ह$ लजस प� ए स� �� व�द� क� एव� स� स� ड� उसक� भ�ई न��नB म�?तत�� क� ह$ औ� उसक� दहसस� म� ववव�दगसत द3क�न एव� उसक� धXपत� पलशम ददश� व�ल� द3क�न आ�� थ�।

¶32

पततव�द�न� उसक� सव�ममतव क� ववव�दगसत द3क�न स�ख�� एक म� कक��द�� ह$। लजसन� ददन��क 15.07.1974 क& ववव�दगसत पर�स� उसस� कक�� प� मल��थ�। इसस� प!व8 इस पर�स� म� श�मत� ग3म�न� द�व� कक��द�� थ�। लजसक� उसन� कक�� प�तप क� �स�द स�ख�� 7 ददन��क 23.10.1974 क� ज�� कक�� अद� कक�� ग�� ज& �स�द पदश8 -7 ह$। उसक� पश�त तन�नत� कक�� अद� कक�� ग�� लजसक� �स�द�त पदश8 8 लग��त पदश8-45 ह$। लज�ह

¶33

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶34

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶35

4 of 33

¶36

म� व�क कक�� ह$ कक श�मत� ग�त� द�व� क� कक�� प� द� थ� उस सम� उसक� भ�ई मCज!द थ�। कक��द�� मCखखक त� ह3ई थ�। ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� कक�� पततव�द�न� क� पतत अम� मस�ह स� उसक� भ�ई न��नB म�?तत�� न� मल�� थ�। �ह सव�क�� कक�� ग�� ह$ कक उसक� ग�त� द�व� स� कक��द�� त ��तX�त नह�� क�।

¶37

गव�ह प� डब1�3 2 उमम�दमल म�?तत�� न� भ� व�द� प� डब1�3 1 स3��नB म�?तत�� क� कथनF क� प!र8त�� त�ईद क� ह$। लज�ह म� व�क कक�� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� क& पथम ��द द3क�न कक�� प� द� थ�।

¶38

इस सम�न� म� पततव�दन� क� ओ� स� पसत3त स�क� क� अवल&कन क�� त& पततव�द�न� ड� डब1�3 1 ग�त� द�व� न� अपन� म3ख� प��कर म� पद स�ख�� द& म� व�क कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न उसक� पर�व�� क� व��प�� ह�त3 30 वर8 प!व8 स3म � मल म�?तत�� स� कक�� प� ल� थ�। वह कक�� उमम�दमल एव� न��नB म�?तत�� न� �तC� मक�न म�मलक प�प कक�� थ�। पद स�ख�� प��X म� पततव�द�न� द�� ह सपष रप स� सव�क�� कक�� ग�� ह$ कक उसन� कभ� व�द� क& मक�न म�मलक म�नन� स� इनक�� नह�� कक�� ह$ द&नF ह� क� मध� मक�न म�मलक औ� कक��द�� क� सम�न� ह$। इस गव�ह न� लज�ह म� सव�क�� कक�� ह$ कक पथम कक�� क� �स�द उसक& द� गई थ� लजसक� क�उनK� पतत �स�द पदश8-7 ह$। �ह व�क कक�� ह$ कक उसन� द3क�न स3म � मल म�?तत�� स� कक�� प� ल� थ� वह� उसक� मक�न म�मलक ह$।

¶39

गव�ह ड� डब1�3 2 इनB मस�ह न� गव�ह ड� डब1�3 1 क� कथनF क� ह!�ह! त�ईद क� ह$। लज�ह म� व�क क�त� ह$ कक द3क�न कक�� प� ल� त� वह 8-10 स�ल क� थ� उसन� �ह भ� सव�क�� कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� कक�� क� �स�द उसक� द�ख� ह3ई ह$ ज& र�कड8 पदश8-6 स� पदश8-45 ह$।

¶40

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶41

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶42

5 of 33

¶43

इस पक�� उभ� पकF क� उक समसत स�क� क� स��प!र8 रप स� ववव�Xन क�� त& म � � ववनम मत म� जह�� व�द� न� ववव�दगसत द3क�न उसक� द�� पततव�द� क& कक�� प� दद�� ज�न� व�क कक�� ह$ वह� पततव�द� न� ववव�दगसत द3क�न स3म � मल म�?तत�� स� कक�� प� मल�� ज�न� तथ� उसक� कक�� न��नB एव� उमम�दमल म�?तत�� द�� तC� मक�न म�मलक ल�न� व�क कक�� ह$।

¶44

इस सम�न� म� व�द� द�� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� सव�ममतव क� सम�न� म� कथन कक�� ग�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न सदहत समप!र8 पल&K स�ख�� 601 �� उसक� वपत� द�� ज�� पदश8 -1 ववक� पत क� ख��द कक�� ग�� थ� तथ� ��द म� उक समपवS क� ��Kव��ह3आ व उसक� एव� उसक� भ�ई न��नB म�?तत�� क� मध� ��Kव�� पदश8 -2 ह$ लजसम� ववव�दगसत द3क�न उसक� दहसस� म� आ��। इस पक�� व�द� क� उक कथनF क� त�ईद उसक� द�� पसत3त दसत�व�ज�त पदश8-1 एव� पदश8-2 स� भ� ह&त� ह$। इस सम�न� म� पततव�द� क� अध�वक� न� दC��न� �हस तक8 पसत3त कक�� ह$ कक व�द� द�� ज& ��Kव�� पदश8-2 प�श कक�� ग�� ह$ वह क�वल द& भ�ई�F क� ��X ह$ ज�कक वसत3त ��Kव�� समपवS क� समसत दहसस�द��न क� ��X ह&न� X�दहए। प�नत3 इस सम�न� म� म � � ववनम मत म� उक ��Kव�� ववल�ख म� �ह सपष रप स� अ�ककत ह$ कक उक ��Kव�� क� ववव�दगसत समपवS पकक��न क� स � 3क पर�व�� क� समपवS थ� लजसक� ��Kव�� ददन��क 25.3.1974 क& ह& ग�� थ�। उक ��Kव�� म� उक द&नF भ�ई�F क� दहसस� म� ज& समपवS आ�� उसक& उक पदश8-2 क� द�� आग� ��Kव�� क� �ह� ह$। ऐस� म� म � � ववनम मत म� जह�� तक स � 3क पर�व�� क� समपवS क� ��Kव�� ह&क� क3 छ समपवS द& भ�ई�F क� दहसस� म� आत� ह$ व उसम� प3न: अपन� ��Kव�� क� दहसस� क& सपष क�त� ह$ त& उसम� ककस� पक�� क� अव�&� पकK नह�� ह&त� ह$ इस सम�न� म� 2003 A.I.R. SCW 69 -

¶45

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶46

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶47

6 of 33

¶48

Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide- Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal .

¶49

इस पक�� न��त�क दष�नत म� पततप�ददत मसद�नत क� दवषगत हसतगत पक�र म� पततव�द�न� क� अध�वक� द�� Kव�� पदश8 -2 क� सम�न� म� उठ�� ग�� तकb क& प&रर�� नह�� म�न� ज� सकत� ह$। इस पक�� व�द� अपन� मCखखक स�क� एव� दसत�व�ज� स�क� पदश8 -1 एव� पदश8 -2 क� आ�� प� पथम दष�� ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� सम�न� म� अपन� सवतव क& दश�8न� म� सफल �ह� ह$।

¶50

तनक� स�ख�� - 7 - आ�� व�द� व�द पत क� कलम स�ख�� 5-ए क� अन3स�� ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� व�सतववक कबज� �� 13 (1) (f) ��जसथ�न कक�� तन�नतर अध�तन�म क� तहत प�न� क� अध�क�� ह$?

¶51

�ह तनक� स�ख�� एक स� सम�लन�त ह&न� स� इसक� तनसत��र स3वव�� क� दवष स� पहल� कक�� ज� �ह� ह$। �ह तनक� व�द� द�� न��ल� क� अन3मतत स� स�श&ध�त द�व� म� ज&?� गए व�द पत क� पद स�ख�� 5 ए क� आ�� प� वव�धXत क� गई ह$। लजसम� व�द� न� �ह आ�� मल�� ह$ कक पततव�द� द�� म!ल जव�� द�व� म� व�द� क� K�ईKल (सवतव) क& X3नCत� द� ह$ तथ� स�थ ह� मक�न म�मलक कक��द�� क� सम�न� स� भ� इनक�� कक�� ह$ लजस� व�द� न� म�फ नह�� कक�� ह$ फलत: वह �� 13 (1) (F) ��जसथ�न कक�� तन�नतर अध�तन�म क� तहत कबज� प�प क�न� क� हकद�� ह$।

¶52

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶53

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶54

7 of 33

¶55

�� 13 (1) (f) म� �ह प�व��न कक�� ग�� ह$ कक �दद :-

¶56

1- कक��द�� न� कक��द�� क� रप म� अपन� ह$मस�त क& नक�� दद�� ह& ��

¶57

2- भ!-सव�म� क� सवतव अध�क�� (Title) स� इनक�� क� दद�� ह& तथ�

¶58

3- भ! सव�म� न� अपन� अध�क��F क& अध�त�लजत नह�� कक�� ह$ �� कक��द�� क� आX�र क& म�फ नह�� कक�� ह&। त& इस आ�� प� वह ��दखल� क� डडक� प�प क�न� क� हकद�� ह&ग�।

¶59

इन तनक� क� सम�न� म� उभ� पकF क� स�क� क� ववव�Xन कक�� ज�न� स� प!व8 द&नF ह� पकF क� ववद�न अध�वक�गर द�� दC��न� �हस पसत3त कक�� ग�� न��त�क दष�नत क� ससमम�न अवल&कन कक�� ज�न� न��&धXत पत�त ह&त� ह$।

¶60

व�द� क� अध�वक� द�� पसत3त न��त�क दष�नत मशवन��र ववरद ज�नक� पस�द 1994 (1) R.L.R. प�ज 319 म� म�नन�� जसथ�न उचX न��ल� द�� ह अमभतन��8र�त कक�� ग�� ह$ कक �दद सवतव स� इनक�� क� सम�न� म� न त& व�द पत म� अमभवXन ह& औ� न ह� तनक� वव�धXत क� गई ह& त� भ� न��ल� उक आ�� प� डडक� प�प क� सकत� ह$। �ह भ� अमभतन��8र�त कक�� ग�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� ककस� भ�ग क� सम�न� म� सवतव (Title) स� इनक�� भ� ��दखल� क� आ�� ह& सकत� ह$। सवतव (Title) स� इनक�� द�व� द�� स� प!व8 ह&न� आवश�क नह�� ह$।

¶61

न��त�क दष�नत ह�द��ल क� क��म म3क�म �न�म �ववनB अगव�ल 2004 (1) W.L.C. प�ज-582 म� कक��द�� द�� ककस� अन� व�डक क� सवतव (Title) ह&न� कधथत कक�� ग�� तथ� �ह भ� अमभकथन कक�� कक व�द� उसक� मक�न म�मलक नह�� ह$। फलत: कक��द�� क� ववरद तनषक�सन क� डडक� क& व$� म�न� ग��।

¶62

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶63

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶64

8 of 33

¶65

वह�� पततव�द�न� क� ववद�न अध�वक� द�� पसत3त न��त�क दष�नत A.I.R. (SC) प�ज 1264 श�मत� श�ल� व अन� �न�म ��म�नन द�� मपक�श म� कक��द�� न� अपन� कक��द�� ह$मस�त स� इनक�� नह�� कक�� व व�द� क& मक�न म�मलक भ� म�न� क�वल उसन� अपन� स � कर क� मलए सद�वन�प!व8क मक�न म�मलक क& अपन� सवतव स�ब�त क�न� क& कह�। म�नन�� सवhचX न��ल� न� अमभतन��8र�त कक�� कक इस� सवतव (Title) स� इनक�� नह�� म�न� ज� सकत�।

¶66

xxx

¶67

इस सम�न� म� म � � ववनम मत म� व�द� द�� अपन� म!ल द�व� म� पततव�द� क& अपन� कक��द�� त�� तथ� लजसस� इनक�� क�त� ह3ए पततव�द�न� न� अपन� म!ल द�व� क� जव�� द�व� म� पद स�ख�� द& म� सपष अमभवXन कक�� ह$ कक उसन� ववव�दगसत द3क�न व�द� क� वपत� स3म � मल म�?तत�� स� कक�� प� ल� थ�। �ह�� तक कक उसन� �ह भ� व�क कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� कक�� उमम�दमल एव� न��नB म�?तत�� न� �तC� मक�न म�मलक प�प कक��। इस पक�� उक अमभवXनF स� �ह सपष इ�धगत क�त� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� न� व�द� स3��नB म�डतत�� स� द3क�न कक�� प� नह� ल� ह$ औ� न ह� उसक& �तC� मक�न म�मलक कक�� अद� कक�� इस पक�� उक अमभवXनF म� सपष रप स� पततव�द�न� न� व�द� क& मक�न म�मलक ह&न� स� सपष रप स� इनक�� कक�� ह$। �ह�� तक कक ज� व�द� द�� स�श&ध�त द�व� क� पद स�ख�� 5 ए ज&?� ग�� लजसम� भ� उसन� सपष रप स� अ�ककत कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न पहल� व�द� क� स � 3क दहनद! पर�व�� क� समपवS थ� ज& व�द� अक�ल� क� ��K म� ��Kव�� म� आ�� ह$। व�द� न� �ह भ� सपष रप स� अ�ककत कक�� ह$ कक व�द� न� उक द3क�न ददन��क 15.07.1974 क& पततव�द�न� क& कक�� प� द� थ� तथ� लजसक� �स�द भ� उसन� द�। उक सपष अमभवXनF क�

¶68

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶69

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶70

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶71

9 of 33

¶72

��वज!द भ� पततव�द�न� न� स�श&ध�त जव�� द�व� क� पद स�ख�� 5-ए म� व�क कक�� ह$ कक व�द� सव�� मसद क�क� कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न उसक� अक�ल� क� ��K म� आ�� ह$। उसन� ददन��क 15.07.1974 क& व�द� स� द3क�न कक�� प� ल�न� क� तथ� क& भ� गलत �त�� तथ� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� कक�� ज��ए �स�द स�ख�� 7 क� अद� क�न� स� भ� इनक�� कक�� ह$ ज�कक तनक� स�ख�� एक क� ववव�Xन क� कम म� व�द� �ह स�ब�त क�न� म� सफल �ह� ह$ कक उसन� ददन��क 15.07.1974 क& द3क�न कक�� प� द� थ�। ततपश�त ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� कक�� व�द� द�� एव� व�द� क� ओ� स� उसक� भ�ई�F द�� ज�� स�द स�ख�� पदश8 7 स� पदश8 -45 मल�� ज�त� �ह� ह$।

¶73

पततव�द� न� अपन� अमभवXनF म� उमम�लमल एव� न��नB म�?तत�� द�� तC� मक�न म�मलक कक�� ल�न� अपन� जव�� द�व� म� अ�ककत कक�� ह$ ज�कक उक उमम�दमल म�?तत�� न� व�द� क� गव�ह प� डब1�! 2 क� रप म� न��ल� म� सपष रप स� सशपथ कथन कक�� ह$ कक उसन� कक�� व�द� डN . स3��नB म�?तत�� क� ओ� स� मल�� थ� तथ� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� म�मलक व�द� ह� ह$ औ� उक द3क�न म� व�द� क� वपत� �� भ�ई�F क� क&ई हक एव� अध�क�� नह�� ह$।

¶74

उक गव�ह�न क� सपष कथनF क� ��वज!द भ� पततव�द�न� द�� अपन� स�क� म� भ� म3ख� प��कर म� जव�� द�व� क� तथ�F क& ह!�ह! द&ह��त� ह3ए उमम�दमल एव� न��नB म�?तत�� द�� तC� मक�न म�मलक कक�� प�प क�न� अ�ककत कक�� ह$ �ह�� तक कक पततव�द�न� ड� डब1�3 1 सव�� श�मत� ग�त� द�व� न� अपन� पतत प��क� म� �ह�� तक कथन कक�� ह$ कक उसन� द3क�न स3म � मल स� कक�� प� ल� थ� औ� वह� इस द3क�न क� म�मलक ह$ औ� क&ई म�मलक नह�� ह$। इस पक�� पततव�द�न� क� उक कथन भ� सपष रप स� व�द� क� सवतव (Title) स� इनक�� क�न� क� श�र� म� आत� ह$।

¶75

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶76

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶77

10 of 33

¶78

दC��न� �हस पततव�द�न� क� ववद�न अध�वक� क� म3ख� तक8 �ह �ह� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� न� व�द� क� सवतव क� X3नCतत नह�� द� ह$ �ल1क उसन� क�वल अपन� सवतव क& स�ब�त क�न� ह�त3 कह� ह$ लजस� सवतव स� इनक�� नह�� म�न� ज� सकत� ह$।

¶79

इस सम�न� म� पततव�द�न� क� ववद�न अध�वक� द�� पसत3त न��त�क दष�नत A.I.R. 2002 (S.C.) प�ज 1264 श�मत� श�ल� �न�म पम&द �� म� भ� म�नन�� सवhचX न��ल� न� �ह अमभतन��8र�त कक�� ह$ कक जह�� कक��द�� सव�� क� स � कर क� मलए सदभ�वन�प!व8क मक�न म�मलक क& सवतव स�ब�त क�न� क� कहत� ह$ त& उस� सवतव स� इनक�� नह�� म�न� ज� सकत�। प�नत3 म � ववनम मत म� उक न��त�क दष�नत तथ�F क� मभननत� क� क��र इस पक�र म� Xसप� नह�� ह&त� ह$। X!�कक हसतगत पक�र म� कह�� भ� ऐस� तथ� पकK नह�� ह3ए ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� सम�न� म� व�द� एव� उसक� पर�व�� क� सदस�F क� मध� ककस� पक�� क� क&ई ववव�द ह& न ह� पततव�द�न� द�� ह अमभवXन कक�� ग�� ह$ कक व�द� क� अल�व� ककस� अन� व�डक न� इस ववव�दगसत द3क�न समपवS क� म�मलक ह&न� कह� ह&। �ह�� तक कक सव�� व�द� क� गव�ह प� डब1�3 2 उमम�दमल म�डतत�� न� ज& व�द� क� भ�ई ह$ न सपष रप स� �ह कथन कक�� ह$ कक ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� म�मलक व�द� ह� ह$। औ� उक द3क�न म� व�द� क� भ�ई�F �� वपत� क� क&ई ल�न� द�न� �� हक अध�क�� नह�� ह$ स�थ ह� व�द� न� जर�� दसत�व�ज�त पदश8 2 मलखखत ��Kव�� क� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� सम�न� म� सव�� क� सव�ममतव क& पथम दष�� स�ब�त कक�� ह$।

¶80

इस पक�� जह�� व�द� क� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� समबन� म� सव�ममतव �� हक क� सम�न� म� ककस� पक�� क� क&ई ववव�द थ� ह� नह�। उसक� ��वज!द पततव�द� द�� उस� ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� सव�म� म�नन� स� एव� मक�न

¶81

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶82

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶83

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶84

11 of 33

¶85

म�मलक म�नन� स� इनक�� कक�� ग�� ह$ लजस� ककस� पक�� स� सद�ववक नह�� म�न� ज� सकत� ह$ तथ� �ह तथ� पततव�द� द�� व�द� क� सवतव स� इनक�� क� श�र� म� आत� ह$।

¶86

इस पक�� हसतगत पक�र म� पततव�द�न� द�� जव�� द�व� म� कक�� ग�� अमभवXनF एव� पसत3त क� गई स�क� स� �ह सपष पकK ह&त� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� न� ववव�दगसत द3क�न स3म � मल म�?तत�� स� कक�� प� ल�न� एव� कक�� तC� मक�न म�मलक उमम�दमल एव� न��नB म�?तत�� क& अद� क�न� क� कथन क� सपष रप स� व�द� क& मक�न म�मलक म�नन� स� इनक�� कक�� ह$। इतन� ह� नह�� पततव�द�न� ड� डब1�3 1 श�मत� ग�त� द�व� न� अपन� लज�ह म� भ� सपष रप स� सव�क�� कक�� ह$ कक उसक� द3क�न म�मलक स3म � मल ह$ उसक� अल�व� क&ई म�मलक नह�� ह$ उक कथन भ� व�द� क� सवतव क� इनक�� क� श�र� म� आत� ह$। पततव�द�न� क� कV त� क& व�द� द�� म�फ कक�� ग�� ह& ऐस� पतत �क� पततव�द�न� क� नह�� ह$। व�द� न� अपन� व�द पत एव� स�क� म� सपष अ�ककत कक�� ह$ कक उसन� पततव�द�न� क� उक आX�र क& म�फ नह�� कक�� ह$।

¶87

अत: तनषकर8त व�द� �ह स�ब�त क�न� म� सफल �ह� ह$ कक पततव�द� न� उसक� सवतव (Title) स� इनक�� कक�� ह$ लजस व�द� न� म�फ नह�� कक�� ह$ फलत: वह �� 13 (1) (f) ��जसथ�न पर�स� कक�� तन�नतर अध�तन�म क� तहत कबज� प�प क�न� क� हकद�� पत�त ह&त� ह$। अत: �ह तनक� उप�38क ववव�Xन�न3स�� व�द� क� पक म� एव� पततव�द�न� क� ववरद त� क� ज�त� ह$।

¶88

xxx

¶89

अन3त&र : - उप�&क समसत तनक��त क� ववव�Xन�न3स�� व�द� ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� सम�न� म� अपन� �3डक�3क एव� सद�ववक आवश�कत� स�ब�त क�न� म� असफल �ह� ह$ अत : �ह भ� स�ब�त क�न� म� असफल

¶90

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶91

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶92

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶93

12 of 33

¶94

�ह� ह$ कक पततव�द�न� पक द�� द�व� द�� स� ठiक छ : म�ह लग�त�� ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� उप�&ग नह�� कक�� ह$।

¶95

अत: उक आ��F प� व�द� क&ई अन3त&र प�प क�न� क� हकद�� नह�� ह$। प�नत3 व�द� तनक� स�ख�� एक व स�त क& स�ब�त क�न� म� सफल �ह� ह$ तथ� �ह स�ब�त ह3आ ह$ कक पततव�द�न� द�� व�द� क� सवतव स� इनक�� कक�� ग�� ह$ लजसक� फलसवरप व�द� �� 13 (1) (f) क� तहत ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� कबज� पततव�द�न� स� प�प क�न� क� हकद�� ह$। फलत: ��दखल� क� सम�न� म� व�द� क� �ह व�द डडक� कक�� ज�न� �&ग� ह$।

¶96

आद�श

¶97

फलसवरप व�द� क� �ह द�व� ख�ल� क��न� ववव�दगसत पर�स� डडक� कक�� ज� क� पततव�द�न� क& आद�श दद�� ज�त� ह$ कक वह व�द पत क� पद स�ख�� एक म� वखर8त प?Cस एव� हद!द क� ववव�दगसत पर�स� क� ख�ल� कबज� इस तनर8� क� ततधथ स� द& म�ह क� भ�त� व�द� क& स3प3द8 क�� तथ� स�थ ह� व�द� इस तनर8� क� ततधथ स� त� ममलन� कबज� ववव�दगसत पर�स� 200/- रप�� पतत म�ह क� रप म� उप�&ग एव� उपभ&ग ��त हज�8न� क� रप म� प�प क�न� क� हकद�� ह&ग�, खX�8 पकक��न अपन� अपन� वहन क��ग�। तदन3स�� डडक� पX�8 म!तत8� कक�� ज�व�।

¶98

Sd/(द�व�नB मस�ह भ�K�) अतत. मसववल न��श (क.ख.) एव� न��त�क मलजसk�K पथम वग8 स�ख�� त�न, ज&�प3� (��ज.)”

¶99

appellant/defendant/tenant also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 giving the following findings while affirming the

¶100

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015

¶101

13 of 33

¶102

judgment and eviction decree of the learned trial court on the same grounds of denial of denial of title but other issues about bonafide need, non-user of shop still decided in favour of defendant/tenant: -

¶103

“24. पततव�द� स�क�-1 ग�त�द�व� न� अपन� स�क� म� म3ख� प��क� म� इस ब�नद3 प�जव�� द�व� क� प$�� स�ख�� 5-ए पसत3त कक�� ह$ वह� अमभकथन कक�� ह$ लजसम� �ह �त�� ह$ कक उसन� व�द� क& मक�न म�मलक म�नन� स� इ�क�� नह�� कक�� औ� न� ह� क��ग� द&नF क� मध� भ!सव�म� व कक��द�� क� स �� ह$ �दद व�द� क� प�स ववव�दगसत द3क�न क� सव�म� ह&न� K�ईKल सथ�वपत ह&न� क� क&ई दसत�व�ज ववध� अन3स�� ह$ त& उस प� पततव�द� क� क&ई एत��ज नह�� ह$ तथ� लज�ह म� इस गव�ह न� �ह �त�� ह$ कक उसक� द�� द3क�न स3म � मल स� कक�� प� ल� गई थ� तथ� स3म � मल ह� उसक� द3क�न म�मलक ह$ इसक� अल�व� उसक� क&ई मक�न म�मलक नह�� ह$। लज�ह म� इस गव�ह न� �ह भ� सव�क�� कक�� ह$ कक वर8 1974 क& सव8पथम द3क�न कक�� प� ल� थ� लजसक� �स�द पदश8-7 ह$ लजस प� उसक� पतत क� हसत�क� ह$ तथ� म3ख� प��क� म� 32 वर8 प!व8 कक�� प� मल�� ज�न� �त�� ह$ �ह�� न��ल� क� ववनम मत �ह ह$ कक पततव�द� स�क�1 क� म3ख� प��क� प�श क� गई ह$ वह ददन��क 5.9.06 क& प�श क� गई ह$ तथ� इस गव�ह क� इस कथन स� सनQ 1974 म� पशगत पर�स� कक�� प� मल�� ज�न� आ�� ह$ तथ� इस स �� म� पततव�द� स�क� -2 इनBमस�ह न� त& अपन� स�क� म� �त�� ह$ कक पशगत पर�स� क� मक�न म�मलक कCन ह$ उस� पत� नह�� ह$ त& �ह�� उभ� पक क� स�क� क� ववव�Xन क�� त& ज� पततव�द� न� अपन� स�क� म� �ह स�फ तC� प� सव�क�� कक�� ह$ कक पशगत पर�स� सनQ 1974 म� कक�� प� मल�� ग�� ह& तथ� पदश8-7 स� कक�� प� मल�� ग�� थ� लजसक� कक�� क� �स�द ह&न�

¶104

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶105

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶106

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶107

14 of 33

¶108

�त�� ह$ त& पशगत पर�स� वर8 1974 कक�� प� ह& ज& व�द� स3��नBमल द�� ज�� क� गई �स�द ह$ लजस प� क&ई ववव�द भ� नह�� ह$ कफ� भ� पततव�द� न� अपन� स�क� म� �ह �त�� ह$ कक स3म � मल स� पशगत पर�स� कक�� प� मल�� थ� तथ� स3म � मल ह� उसक� मक�न म�मलक ह$ तथ� जव�� द�व� म� उमम�दमल व न��नB क& भ� म�मलक ह&न� �त�� ह$ ल�ककन व�द� क& म�मलक क� स �� म� कह� कक स�ब�त क�� ज�कक ज& दसत�व�ज पदश8-1 वर8 1973 क� ह$ तथ� पदश8 2 व 3 वर8 1974 क� ह$ त& ज� पशगत पर�स� कक�� प� दद�� ग�� थ� उस सम� व�द� क� पशगत पर�स� ��K म� आ�� थ� तथ� दसत�व�ज पदश8-7 स� औ� व�द� क� व पततव�द� क� स�क� स� भ� पशगत पर�स� द�� स3म � मल स� कक�� प� ल�न� औ� स3म � मल क& ह� मक�न म�मलक ह&न� अपन� स�क� म� �त�� ह$ त& कफ� व�द� क� सवतव स� स�फ तC� स� व सपष रप स� भ!सव�म� ह&न� स� इ�क�� कक�� ज�न� क� त��फ म� पततव�द� क� स�क� स� ह� �ह लसथतत स�फ ह&त� ह$ तथ� इस स �� म� अप�ल�थm पततव�द� क� ववद�न अध�वक� न� ज& न��त�क ववतनश� पसत3त ककए ह$ उनक� ससमम�न प!व8क पर�श�लन क�न� स� म�नन�� उचXतम न��ल� द�� AIR 2002 SC 1264 Sheeta and others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash लजसम� �ह व�वसथ� द� ह$ कक �दद त�स�� व�डक स� कक�� प� मल�� ज�न� �त�� ज�त� ह$ औ� त�स�� व�डक क� म�मलक ह&न� �त�� ज�त� ह$ त& वह सवतव इ�क�� क� त��फ म� आत� ह$। हसतगत म�मल� म� �ह� लसथतत ह$ कक पततव�द�न� न� पशगत पर�स� ज� व�द� स� कक�� प� जर�ए �स�द पदश8-7 स� मल�� ह$ औ� व�द� क� सवतव क& भ!सव�म� क� लसथतत स� इ�क�� क� �ह� ह$ तथ� त�स�� व�डक स3म � मल क& पशगत पर�स� क� म�मलक ह&न� �त� �ह� ह$ त& �ह सवतव क� इ�क�� क� म�मल� ह$। ववध� क� �ह स3सपष मसद�नत ह$ कक समपवS क� प�:लसथतत वपत� प3त क� अपन�-अपन� व�डकतनष ह&त� ह$

¶109

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶110

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶111

15 of 33

¶112

इसमल�� महज स3म � मल द�� पशगत पर�स� क� ख��दन� स� वह भ!सव�म� ह& ज�त� ह& ऐस� ववध�क लसथतत नह�� ह$ �ल1क पततव�द� न� पथम दष�� ह� ऐस� क&ई स�क� नह�� द� ह$ कक स3म � मल द�� पशगत पर�स� कक�� प� दद�� ग�� ह& ऐस� स!�त म� अप�ल�थm पततव�द� क� ववद�न अध�वक� न� ज& न��त�क ववतनश� पसत3त कक�� ग�� ह$ उनक� पर�प�क� म� उनक� ससमम�न-प!व8क पर�श�लन क�न� स� भ� म�नन�� उचXतम न��ल� व म�नन�� जसथ�न उचX न��ल� द�� ज& भ! - सव�म� क� सवतव क� इ�क�� क� स �� म� ज& मसद�नत पततप�ददत कक�� ह$ उनक� �&शन� म� भ� �दद भ!सव�म� क� सवतव क& ककस� त�स�� व�डक क� सवतव �त�क� कक��द�� म�मल� �न�त� ह$ त& वह�� सवतव क� इ�क�� क� सपष रप स� म�मल� ह&त� ह$ तथ� �ह क&ई पततव�द� न� ज& अपन� जव�� द�व� म� व अपन� स�क� म� ज& अमभव�क मल�� ह$ वह क&ई सद�ववक पतत�क� नह�� ह$। ज� �ह�� इसस� भ� अध�क एक लसथतत एक �ह भ� ह$ कक ज� पततव�द� क� स�क� स� प!व8 ह� कक�� क� �स�द�त पदश8-7 स� पदश8 45 पसत3त क� ज� X3क� थ� लजसम� न��ल� क� �स�द म� स3��नBमल क� मलख� ह3आ अ�ककत ह$ तथ� ज& ��K म� आन� क� दसत�व�ज वर8 1974 क� पदश8-2 भ� पततव�द� क� स�क� स� प!व8 म� ह� प�श कक�� ज� X3क� थ� कफ� भ� पततव�द� न� अपन� स�क� म� स3म � मल क& पशगत समपवS क� म�मलक ह&न� �त�� इसक� अल�व� ककस� अन� क& म�मलक ह&न� नह�� त�� ह$ त& �ह व�द� क� भ!सव�म� क� सवतव स� स�फ तC� स� इ�क�� क� म�मल� ह& ज�त� ह$ इसमल�� अप�ल�थm पततव�द� क� ववद�न अध�वक� न� ज& न��त�क ववतनश� पसत3त कक�� ह$ वह हसतगत म�मल� क� तथ�F क� मभननत� क� क��र आकV ष नह�� ह&त� ह$ तथ� अप�ल�थm पततव�द� क� ववद�न अध�वक� न� �ह दल�ल पसत3त क� कक ��जसथ�न पर�स� (कक�� तथ� ��दखल� तन��तर) अध�तन�म क� �� 3 म� भ!सव�म� व कक��द�� क& पर�भ�वरत कक�� ह3आ ह$ तथ�

¶113

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶114

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶115

16 of 33

¶116

�ह�� इस स �� म� न��ल� क� ववनम मत ह$ कक भ!सव�म� ज& भ� कक�� प�प क�त� ह$ वह प�पकत�8 ह& ज�त� ह$ ल�ककन भ!सव�म� क� सवतव क� म�मलक�न� हक स� ज3?� ह3आ ह&त� ह$ वह ब�लक3 ल मभनन म�मल� ह&त� ह$ तथ� ज& भ!सव�म� औ� कक��द�� क� स �� क� �� म� ज& ववव�दक स�ख�� 1 म� तनखर8त कक�� ग�� ह$ वह क&ई ववव�दक स�ख�� 7 स� वव�&��भ�स� नह�� ह& सकत� ह$ क�Fकक ज� पततव�द� न� अपन� जव�� द�व� म� �ह अमभकथन कक�� ह$ कक वह भ!सव�म� स�ब�त क�� त& कफ� ववव�दक स�ख�� 1 क� वव�Xन� क�न� ल�ज� ह& ग�� थ� लजसम� भ!सव�म� व कक��द�� क� व�द� व पततव�द� क� स �� ह&न� म�न� ह$ तथ� इस स �� म� ववद�न अ��नसथ न��ल� द�� ज& तनषकर8 दद�� ग�� ह$ उसम� ककस� पक�� क� हसतक�प क� ग3�ज�ईश नह�� ह$ वह ववध�क मसद�नतF क� पर�प�क� म� सह� तनषकर8 दद�� ग�� ह$ अत : ववव�दक स�ख�� 7 क� स �� म� ज& ववद�न अ��नसथ न��ल� द�� तनषकर8 दद�� ग�� ह$ वह प3ष कक�� ज�न� �&ग� ह$।

¶117

xxx

¶118

मpन� उभ� पक क� �हस प� मनन कक�� एव� न��त�क ववतनश�F क� ससमम�न प!व8 पर�श�लन कक��। इस स �� म� �दद व�द� क� अमभवXनF क� पर�श�लन कक�� ज�ए त& व�द� न� अपन� स�क� म� �त�� कक उसक� आमदन� �ढ�न� क� मल�� पशगत पर�स� ख�ल� ह&न� प� लकलतनक ख&लन� क� �&जन� ह$ इस स �� म� तनवव8व�द लसथतत ह$ कक व�द� ��जक�� स�व� म� धXककतसक क� पद प� क��8�त ह$ तथ� ज� ��जक�� स�व� म� धXककतसक क� पद प� क��8�त ह$ त& वह अन�थ� रप स� प�ईव�K रप स� क&ई �न�� क�न!न� रप स� क� सकत� ह& ऐस� लसथतत ववद�न अध�वक� पत�थm - व�द� क� ओ� स� सपष नह�� क� गई ह$ तथ� ज� ��जक�� स�व� म� एक तनलशम स�व� कत8व� क� सम� ह&त� ह$ तथ� धXककतसक कत8व� त& ऐस�

¶119

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶120

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶121

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶122

17 of 33

¶123

ह$ कक उसक� सम� �दलत� �हत� ह$ तथ� व�द� मसववल स�व� आX�र तन�म 1971 क� तन�म 18 क� अन3स�� ज� स�क�� क� प!व8 अन3मतत आवश�क ह$ तथ� पत�थm व�द� द�� प�लकKस क�न� क� मल�� लकलतनक ख&लन� क� मल�� क&ई अन3मतत ल� ह& �� स�व�तनवVS� ल�न� ज� �ह� ह& ऐस� क&ई पत�थm व�द� क� अमभभ�वक नह�� ह$ तथ� महज आ�&जन पथम त& पशगत पर�स� क� आवश�कत� क� इचछ� म�त ह$ ज� ��जक�� स�व� म� क��8�त ह$ त& कफ� व�द� क� सद�ववक आवश�कत� कतई नह�� म�न� ज� सकत� ह$ इसमल�� पशगत पर�स� क� सद�ववक आवश�कत� ह� नह�� ह$ त& कफ� त3लन�तमक कदठन�ई ह� आ�मशक तनषक�सन क� पश ��म�न� ह& ज�त� ह$ इसमल�� उभ� पक क� ओ� स� इन ववव�दक क� स �� म� ज& न��त�क ववतनश� पसत3त कक�� ह$ उनक� �&शन� म� व�द� क� पशगत पर�स� क� �थ�थ8त�: म� �3डक�3क एव� सद�ववक आवश�कत� ह& �ह कतई व�द� ��जक�� स�व� म� क��8�त ह&न� स� नह�� म�न� ज� सकत� क�Fकक व�द� सव�� अपन� तनज� लकल�नक क� मल�� आवश�कत� ह&न� �त�� ह$ ज�कक व�द� ज& सव�� जक�� स�व� म� क��8�त ह$ इसमल�� व�द� क� �ह सद�ववक आवश�कत� नह�� ह& सकत� ह$। अत: ववव�दक स�ख�� 2 स� 4 क� स �� म� ज& ववद�न अ��नसथ न��ल� द�� तनषकर8 दद�� ग�� ह$ लजसम� ककस� पक�� क� हसतक�प क� आवश�कत� नह�� ह$ तथ� पत�थm व�द� क� ज& कNस आबज�कशन ह$ वह असव�क�� कक�� ज�न� �&ग� ह$।

¶124

अत: अप�ल�थm-पततव�द� क� अप�ल ववव�दक स�ख�� 7 क� स �� म� असव�क�� क� ज�क� ख�र�ज कक�� ज�न� �&ग� ह$ तथ� पत�थm-व�द� क� कNस आबज�कशन ववव�दक स�ख�� 2 स� 5 क� स �� म� असव�क�� क� ज�क� ख�र�ज कक�� ज�न� �&ग� ह$।

¶125

आद�श

¶126

अत: अप�ल�थm-पततव�द� क� ओ� स� पसत3त

¶127

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶128

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶129

18 of 33

¶130

अप�ल ववव�दक स�ख�� 7 क� स �� म� असव�क�� क� ज�क� ख�र�ज क� ज�त� ह$ तथ� ववद�न अ��नसथ न��ल� द�� ववव�दक स�ख�� 7 क� स �� म� ज& तनर8� व डडक� ��त ��दखल� पशगत पर�स� ददन��क 21.5.08 क& प�र�त क� गई ह$ उस� प3ष कक�� ज�त� ह$ तथ� पत�थm व�द� क� कNस आबज�कशन ववव�दक स�ख�� 2 स� 5 क� स �� म� असव�क�� क� ज�क� ख�र�ज कक�� ज�त� ह$। म�मल� क� तथ�F एव� पर�लसथतत�F म� पकक��न खX�8 अपन�-अपन� वहन क��ग� तदन�न3स�� डडक� पX�8 त$�� कक�� ज�व�। तनर8� व डडक� क� पतत अ��नसथ न��ल� क& पत�वल� क� स�थ प�वरत ह&।

¶131

Sd/(धग��श क3 म�� शम�8) अप� लजल� न��श स�ख��-एक, ज&�प3� मह�नग�"

¶132

The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, 10^th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law (“Bhabhi”) of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia.

¶133

Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights,

¶134

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 19 of 33

¶135

title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law.

¶136

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'), the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term “Landlord” in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal

¶137

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 20 of 33

¶138

and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed.

¶139

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as “landlord” as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows.

¶140

Though O. 41 R. 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed.

¶141

Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -

¶142

“ 109. Rights of lessor's transferee : - If the

¶143

lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the

¶144

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶145

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶146

21 of 33

¶147

transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary , shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease , unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him;

¶148

Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor , the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.

¶149

The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.”

¶150

The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after

¶151

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 22 of 33

¶152

transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlordtenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term “landlord” has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word “Landlord” is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under: -

¶153

“(iii). “ Landlord ” means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person , or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant.”

¶154

The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to

¶155

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 23 of 33

¶156

believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act.

¶157

No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realize rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been

¶158

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015

¶159

24 of 33

¶160

transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift.

¶161

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LR's & Anr. Vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2010 DNJ (SC) 214 , relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: -

¶162

“10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorize any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether . This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal Vs. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given.”

¶163

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 25 of 33

¶164

While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorized by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of “landlord” under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term 'landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether.

¶165

The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas Vs. Bhagwandas reported in 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC) , and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma Vs. Kamla Acharya reported in

¶166

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶167

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶168

26 of 33

¶169

2001 AIHC 2369 .

¶170

In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra) , this Court in para 17 held as under: -

¶171

“17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant . The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property , including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das (1997 (5) (SC) 363) (supra) , wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus: -

¶172

“It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant

¶173

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶174

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶175

27 of 33

¶176

attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.”

¶177

A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan Vs. Ram Kishore reported in MANU/RH/1271/2014 and held as under: -

¶178

“18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain V. Uakoob , reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443 , wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift . Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality . It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant , but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned hereinabove, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra”.

¶179

19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment .

¶180

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs.

¶181

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶182

Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶183

28 of 33

¶184

20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Contrl Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:-

¶185

“(c) “landlord” means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant.”

¶186

21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person 'who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord.

¶187

22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2 (c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent . Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord.”

¶188

In the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113 , the Hon'ble

¶189

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 29 of 33

¶190

Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction.

¶191

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad Vs. Masoodbi reported in AIR 1991 MP 23 , dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this: -

¶192

“This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property . In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice

¶193

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya

¶194

Order dated 10/03/2015

¶195

30 of 33

¶196

because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal MANU/MP/0003/1980 (FB) .

¶197

The above statutory consequences shall follow “in absence of a contract to the contrary”. This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act . Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Prperty Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression “in the absence of a contract to the contrary” appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-1 that there was an agreement

¶198

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015

¶199

31 of 33

¶200

between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail.”

¶201

Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law

¶202

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 32 of 33

¶203

by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶204

The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15^th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking

¶205

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.191/2013 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Amar Singh Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya S/o late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya Order dated 10/03/2015 33 of 33

¶206

incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.

¶207

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶208

DJ/18

Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narain Singh and Ors. Vs Laxman Singh and Ors.

Lrs.of Ramniwas Vs Tara Chand

Satya Narain Purohit Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Poonam Negi Vs Dharmendra Singh

Punjab National Bank Vs Ram Niwas Mathura Lal and Anr.

Manak Chand Vs Firm Bakhatawar Mal Roop Chand