Madan Lal Vs. Bhupender Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - jodhpur and he is sole owner of the said plot upon which he has constructed a house, situated at baiji-ka-talab, near ramdeoji temple and said house was given on rent to the appellant-defendant under rent-deed dated 31.1.1976. suit was filed on the basis of default as well as on the ground of bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. 4. learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the trial court as well as lower appellate court has failed to take into consideration the aspect principles of natural justice. 5. i have perused the judgment of the trial court as well as judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court. 7. similarly, on the ground of bona fide necessity, the appellant failed to produce any evidence on record in his defence inspite of granting ample opportunity, then, obviously he cannot be permitted to raise any objection with regard to finding of fact at this stage.gopal krishan vyas, j.1. in this second appeal, the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009 passed by the addl. district judge (fast track) no. 4, jodhpur in civil appeal decree no. 96/08 is under challenge, whereby, the learned lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 passed by addl. civil judge (jr. dn.) no. 5, jodhpur in civil original case no. 16/98, by which, the appellant-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.2. according to brief facts of the case, respondent-landlord preferred suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in the year 1998 with assertion that he was allotted plot by the u.i.t. jodhpur and he is sole owner of the said plot upon which he has constructed a house, situated at baiji-ka-talab, near ramdeoji temple and said house was given on rent to the appellant-defendant under rent-deed dated 31.1.1976. suit was filed on the basis of default as well as on the ground of bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. learned trial court framed as many as nine issues and after framing the issues, statements of five prosecution witnesses were recorded and no evidence was produced by the appellant-defendant inspite of granting enough time. upon adjudication of the issues, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, by which, decree for eviction and recovery of rent was passed on 26.2.2005. said judgment of the trial court was challenged by the appellant-defendant before the district judge, jodhpur by way of filing appeal which was transferred to the court of addl. district judge (fast track) no. 4, jodhpur. labour lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 vide judgment dated 2.3.2009.3. the present appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant on the ground that though the appellant specifically pleaded that the rent-deed ex. 3 is not properly stamped and the same is not a registered document, therefore, the said rent-deed is not admissible in evidence, the learned trial court has, however, not looked into the provisions of stamp act, therefore, judgments rendered by both the courts below deserve to be quashed. as per learned counsel for the appellant, the rent-deed being not properly stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence but the learned trial court wrongly dismissed the application of the defendant for raising said objection and wrongly arrived at the finding that the rent-deed is not inadmissible in law.4. learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the trial court as well as lower appellate court has failed to take into consideration the aspect principles of natural justice. as per learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has not been granted sufficient opportunity of leading evidence in his defence. it is contended that before the trial court opportunity was sought by the defendant on the ground that his counsel was out of town on 23.11.2004 due to marriage of his daughter's daughter. learned trial court however granted only two days time and matter was ordered to be fixed on 25.11.2004. thereafter, opportunity to lead evidence in defence was closed. therefore, in a hasty manner the trial court decided the case which is against the principles of natural justice.5. i have perused the judgment of the trial court as well as judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court.6. it is very strange that before the trial court the plea of the appellant was that the rent-deed is forged one but no evidence was produced before the trial court to substantiate the plea of fabrication of the document. so also, no efforts were made to prove the contention before the trial court. therefore, it appears that a baseless plea was taken before the trial court by the appellant-tenant which is rightly discredited by the trial court because no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant-defendant.7. similarly, on the ground of bona fide necessity, the appellant failed to produce any evidence on record in his defence inspite of granting ample opportunity, then, obviously he cannot be permitted to raise any objection with regard to finding of fact at this stage. therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below does not require interference. so also, no substantial question of law emerges in this second appeal for consideration.8. the other ground with regard to admissibility of unregistered rent-deed was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.8.2004 by speaking order which is not challenged by the appellant. therefore, the ground raised by the appellant now in this appeal is not tenable.9. in this view of the matter, there is no ground for interference. consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.10. however, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that some time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises in question. in my opinion, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant is genuine, therefore, six months' time is hereby allowed to vacate the premises and to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent-plaintiff, upon the condition further that the appellant shall furnish undertaking before the trial court that he will give vacant possession of the premises in question by 31st march, 2010 and, so also, he shall deposit the amount decreed by the trial court within one month and shall continue to pay mesne profits month by month till handing over vacant possession to the respondent-plaintiff. it is made clear that if the appellant will not furnish the above undertaking and/or fails to deposit the amount as ordered above within one month from today, then, appropriate contempt proceedings shall be initiated against him.