Jogendra Singh S/o Sant Singh, Resident Of Chawani, Kota (Raj) v. Jagjeet Singh S/o Sant Singh, Resident Of Through J.k

: Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Avi Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 01/08/2025 Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No.14/13 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated

25.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Kota (South) in civil suit No.416/1998 by which the plaintiff’s suit for eviction, recovery of rent & use and occupation charges has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent & use and occupation charges against the defendant mentioning therein that the disputed premises is situated at Chawani Kota, near the Gurudwara where the defendant is a tenant in one room at monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. (2 of 4) [CSA-112/2020] The defendant has neither paid rent to the plaintiff since

18.07.1992 nor tendered his rent and made defaults in paying the rent. The plaintiff has bona fide and reasonable necessity for the disputed premises and if the disputed premises is not vacated, the plaintiff will have to face comparative hardship. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated the defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff. The disputed premises is an ancestral property which was partitioned orally between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff had mortgaged three rooms and a shop of the defendant’s share for Rs. 50,000/-, with the condition that whenever the defendant would pay Rs.50,000/- and would take possession of the rented premises, then the same would be handed over to the defendant, but he will have to pay Rs.200/- per month of the room in question. The defendant wants to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1&D;k izfroknh us oknh dks oknxzLr fdjk;s ’kqnk ifjlj dk fdjk;k Vs.Mj] vnk ugha dj dkuwuh O;frdze fd;k gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl dnj\ 2&D;k oknxzLr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dh oknh dks Lo;a ds fuokl gsrq ln~Hkkfod vko’;drk gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl dnj\ 3&D;k izfroknh us oknxzLr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dks fdjk;s ij ysus dh fnukad ls gh can j[kdj mi;ksx ugha fd;k\ ;fn gka rks bldk nkos ij D;k vlj iMsxk\ 4&D;k oknxzLr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj ds [kkyh ugha gksus dh n’kk esa izfroknh dh vis{kk oknh dks vf/kd dfBukbZ gksxh\ (3 of 4) [CSA-112/2020] 5&D;k oknxzLr fdjk;s ’kqnk ifjlj dh vkaf’kd csn[kyh laHko gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl dnj\ 6&D;k oknh us lE;d U;k; ’kqYd pLik fd;k gS\ 7&D;k oknxzLr ifjlj ij izfroknh fdjk;snkj ugha gksdj fxjohnkj gS vkSj oknh us ;g ifjlj 50 gtkj :i;s esa mUgsa fxjoh j[kk gS\ ;fn gka rks nkos ij bldk D;k vlj iMsxk\ 8&vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Jogender Singh and PW-2-Mukhtar Singh. The defendants also got examined DW-1 Jagjeet Singh, DW-2 Mehar Singh Poonia, DW-3 Iqbal Mohammed. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

25.10.2013 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. By way of evidence, the plaintiff proved that the defendant was a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs.200/- but he had not paid the rent since 18.07.1992. Therefore, he became a defaulter due to non-payment of the said rent. The plaintiff has bona fide and reasonable necessity for the disputed premises but the trial court as well as the appellate court (4 of 4) [CSA-112/2020] dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below are required to be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below against the plaintiff. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff had not adduced any cogent evidence that the defendant was his tenant and he was paying the rent. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/55 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J