Narendra Kumar Vs LRs. of Late Shri Ashkaran Buchcha

Vineet Kothari, J. (Oral) - The present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-landlord against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2001 passed by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal Decree No. 88/96 - Ashkaran v. Narendra Kumar, reversing the judgment and eviction decree dated 20.01.1996 passed by the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Bikaner in Suit No. 290/93 - Narendra Kumar v. Shri Ashkaran, decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-landlord, in respect of the suit property, a shop in question situated at Bikaner on the ground of non-user of the suit shop, with the following findings:-

bl laca/k esa Mh0M0 1 vkldj.k ls tc odhy oknh us ftjg dh x;h rks xokg us dgk fd uxj ifj"kn ,yVsjlu ,DV lacaf/kr ykbZlsal ;k izek.k i= ys j[kk gSA fdUrq laHkkydj ugha j[kk gS] 1981 ds ckn uxj ifj"kn ls mDr ykbZlsal dk uohuhdj.k Hkh ugha djok;k x;k gSA vr% 1981 ds ckn izfroknh ;fn nqdku dks [kksydj O;kikj djrk rks og fuf''pr :i ls mDr ykbZlsal dk uohuhdj.k djokrkA blh izdkj vkxs ftjg esa ;g xokg dgrk gS fd fglkc dh cfg;ka nks pkj lky rd laHkky dj j[krs gS] mlds ckn QkM+ nsrs gSA fdUrq vnkyr esa fdlh Hkh rjg ds fglkc dh cfg;ka] fdrkc ;k dksbZ pkSiM+h rd izfroknh us is''k ugha dh gS] ftlls lkfcr gks fd nqdku [kqyh jgrh gSA nqdku esa fctyh gksus dh ckr Hkh dgrk gS vkSj crkrk gS fd ;fn eSa nqdku esa gksrk gwa rks fctyh dk fcy eq>s nsrk gS] vU;Fkk fcy ij yksd ''kCn fy[k nsrs gSA jks''kuh ds fcyksa dk Hkqxrku o mldh jlhnsa esjs ikl gh jgrh gS] fctyh ds fcy ds lanHkZ esa vkxs ;g xokg dgrk gS fd vkt esjs ikl fctyh dk ,d Hkh fcy ugha gS] o"kZ 1982 ds ckn ls esjs ikl fctyh dk dksbZ fcy vk;k gh ugha] blfy;s eSaus 1982 ds ckn ls vkt rd dksbZ fctyh dk fcy ugha Hkjk gSA nqdku esa vc jks''kuh ugha gS] fctyh dk dusD''ku dVk gqvk gS ftldks ikap N% o"kZ gks x;s gSA esjh jk; ls vkt ds tekus esa fcuk fctyh ds NksVh lh nqdku esa Hkh jguk eqf''dy dk;Z gSA ikap N% o"kksZa rd fctyh dk dusD''ku dVs jgus dk vFkZ ;gh gS fd ikap N% o"kksZa ls vf/kd le; ls izfroknh dh nqdku can iM+h gS] vkSj mlesa dksbZ dke ugha gks jgk gS] blds vykok izfroknh ds >wB cksyus dh iqf"V Hkh mlh ds c;kuksa ls gh gks tkrh gS fd ''kq: esa ;g xokg fctyh ds fcy gksus dh ckr dgrk gS] vkSj nqdku ij gkftj gksrk gS rks fcy fctyh okys mldks ns nsrs gSA vU;Fkk fctyh ds fcYl ij yksd ''kCn fy[k nsrs gS] jks''kuh ds fcy [kqn gh nqdku ds pqdkus dh vkSj jlhn vius ikl j[kus dh ckr dgrk gS] fdUrq vkxs vkSj xgjkbZ ls iwNus ij xokg eatwj djrk gS fd o"kZ 1982 ds ckn esjs ikl ,d Hkh fctyh dk fcy ugha vk;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl xokg ds c;ku fnukad 18-04-1995 dks gq, gSA 1982 ls 1995 yxHkx 13 o"kZ dh vof/k gksrh gSA vr% xokg ds c;ku >wBs vkSj vfo''oluh; gS fd nqdku esa fctyh ugha gksrs gq, Hkh og viuk O;olk; dj jgk gS] blh dkj.k ls nqdku can iM+h jguk vkSj mlds ckn mldk fctyh dk dusD''ku dVuk lkfcr gSA

blh izdkj izfroknh ''kgknr esa Mh0M0 2 Hkxokunkl] Mh0M0 3 ghjkyky mDr nksuksa gh xokgku izfroknh vk''kdj.k ds fV;wVMZ xokg gSA ,slh dksbZ iq[rk lk{; ugha vk;h gS ftlls lkfcr gks fd izfroknh dh nqdku [kkyh gks] vkSj mlesa O;olk; gks jgk gks] bl ckjs esa izfroknh us lkeku [kjhnus ,oa cspus ds laca/k esa fcYl is''k ugha fd;s gSA u gh nqdku ds pkyw jgus ds ckcr ogka ds fctyh ds Hkjs gq, fcYl is''k fd;s gS] u gh [kkrkcgh is''k dh x;h gS vkSj u dksbZ fcy is''k fd;k x;k gS] u gh ekSdk dk nqdku dk QksVks is''k fd;k x;k gSaA vr% fjdkMZ ij vk;h lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd izfroknh us nqdku o"kZ 1981 ls can dj j[kh gSA fygktk rudh la[;k 2 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds gd esa vkSj izforknh ds f[kykQ fd;k tkrk gSA

sd/-

(gseUn dqekj tSu)

chdkusj"

2. The learned appellate court, however, reversed the findings of the learned trial court with the following observations :-

"16- eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA mDr fofu.kZ; 1992(1) vkj0,y0 vkSj 206 iwj.key cuke jgeku ds iSjk la[;k 11 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj ifjlj dks fdjk;s ij ysdj yacs le; rc can j[krk gS] rks blls laifRr dh dher de gksrh gSA vkSj Hkw&Lokeh viuh laifRr dk viuh bPNkuqlkj mi;ksx djus ls Hkh oafpr jgrk gSA blfy;s ;g izko/kku cuk;k x;k gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj yxkrkj N% ekg rd fdjk;s''kqnk ifjlj dk iz;ksx ugha djrk gS] rc Hkw&Lokeh bl laca/k esa okn izLrqr dj ldrk gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks ;g vf/kdkj gS fd og bl vk/kkj ij fMdzh ikfjr djsA N% ekg rd ifjlj dk mi;ksx ugha djus dk csn[kyh dk Lo;a esa dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS] cfYd ;g vk/kkj rHkh gS] tcfd oknh N% ekg lekIr gksus ds mijkar rqjar gh okn izLrqr dj nsA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj N% ekg ls vf/kd vof/k rd nqdku dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k tk jgk gS rks Hkw&Lokeh }kjk N% ekg dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds rqjar ckn okn ugha yk;k x;k gS] rc ;g ekuk tkosxk fd Hkw&Lokeh us izfroknh fdjk;snkj ds mDr d`R; dks {kek dj fn;k gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ckn esa okn izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk er fuEu izdkj gS%&" If the landlord does not take prompt action for filing a suit for eviction despite non-user of premises by the tenant for six months, he must be deemed to have condoned the non-user and he cannot, therefore be allowed to file suit on that ground.

17- orZeku izdj.k esa oknh dh ;g lk{; gS fd lu~ 1981 ls nqdku can dj j[kh gS vkSj mlds yxHkx rhu o"kZ ckn ;g okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh ;g ekuk gS fd nqdku 1981 ls bl fu"d"kZ dks lgh Hkh eku fy;k tkos rks Hkh mi;qZDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; dh jks''kuh esa oknh dks 1981 esa tc ,slh vof/k N% ekg dh fudy x;h Fkh rks mlds rqjar ckn izfroknh ds fo:) okn izLrqr djuk pkfg;s ijUrq oknh dh vksj ls u rks rqjar okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh fdlh ;qfDr;qDr le;kof/k esa okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] cfYd yxHkx rhu lky ds mijkar ;g okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s mi;qZDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; dh jks''kuh esa oknh bl vk/kkj ij izfroknh fo:) csn[kyh dh fMdzh izkIr ugha dj ldrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; lgh izdkj ls oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) ugha fd;k gS] tks iyVus ;ksX; gS rFkk bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) ,oa izfroknh ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA

fook|d la[;k 4%&

20- eSaus bu rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k fdjk;kukek izn''kZ 1 esa ''krZ 4 gS ftlesa uksfVl nsus dh vfuok;Zrk cryk;h x;h gS fd Hkw&Lokeh dks nqdku dh t:jr iM+h rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsuk gksxkA vFkkZr t:jr ds vk/kkj ij oknh nqdku fjDr djokuk pkgrk rks mls ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsuk vfuok;Z Fkk] ijUrq oknh dk vius nkos esa ;g vk/kkj ugha gS] cfYd og rks /kkjk 13(1)(ts) ds vk/kkj ij viuk okn yk;k gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa ,sls uksfVl dh vko'';drk ugha Fkh vkSj bl laca/k esa tks U;kf;d fu.kZ; vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] os rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k orZeku izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gks jgs gSA

21- vr% rudh la[;k 2 ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh ds fo:) ifjlj ds fu"dklu dh fMdzh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrh gS vkSj blus rudh dk fu.kZ; vc izfroknh vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa gks x;k gSA rudh la[;k 1 o 3 ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dks fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa O;frdzeh ekuk x;k gS] ijarq ;g mldk izFke O;frdze gS] vr% bl vk/kkj ij /kkjk 13(6) vf/k0 dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gks tkrk gS vkSj ;g vihy Lohdkj ;ksX; gS rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh vikLruh; gksdj oknh dk nkok mi;qZDr izdkj ls fujLr ;ksX; gSA

22- vr,oa vihykFkhZ izfroknh dh ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk oknh dk okn izfroknh ds fo:) izfroknh dks /kkjk 13(6) dk ykHk nsdj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ dk O;; i{kdkjku viuk viuk Lo;a djsxsaA rn~uqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA

Sd/-

chdkusj"

3. While admitting the present second appeal on 06.02.2002, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:-

"1. Whether the learned lower appellate court is right in reversing the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 2 without meeting with the reasons given by the learned trial court?

2. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the plaintiff on the ground that the suit was not filed immediately after expiry of the six month from the date since which the premises were not being used, though according to the plaintiff, the premises are not being used since 1981 and the suit has been filed in the year 1983?

3. Whether the finding of the learned lower appellate court about plaintiff''s failure to prove non-user of the premises as contemplated by Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act is perverse?"

4. Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-landlord submits that the suit has been dismissed by the learned appellate court, reversing the findings of the learned trial court only on the ground that even though the shop in question was admittedly lying closed for last more than three years, the learned appellate court held that since the suit was not filed just after the non-user for a period of six months, the eviction decree could not be given.

5. Mr. Hemant Balani appearing for Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent-tenant however, supported the impugned order of the learned appellate court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the learned appellate court are absolutely perverse and the non-user of the shop in question for a period more than six months was duly established by the plaintiff-landlord for grant of eviction decree under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Thus, the eviction decree could not have been refused, if the non-user was for a period more than the minimum stipulated period of six months. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned appellate court cannot be sustained and the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord deserves to be allowed, and the questions of law framed above deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant.

7. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is allowed, while answering the questions of law framed above in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant.

8. In the circumstances, it is directed that the defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the plaintiff-landlord on or before 31.08.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month (Rupees One Thousand only) commencing from the month of March, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff-landlord also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of Six Months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or 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. The defendants-tenants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month 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-landlord within a period of Six Months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts below forthwith.