w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Imamudeen @ Imam Ali v/s Gokul Chand


Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L22219DL1970PLC005400

Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219DL1970PLC005400

    Civil Second Appeal No. 388 of 2011

    Decided On, 26 August 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

    For the Appellant: V.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Moti Singh, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Kailash Chandra Joshi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage.

2. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Moti Singh has entered caveat and has put in appearance.

3. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant Imamudeen @ Imam Ali against the respondent Gokul Chand, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011, passed by the learned Addl.District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Civil Regular Appeal No.13/2008 by which the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadra dated 24.07.2008, passed in civil original suit No.29/2004 whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent. 2

4. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent before the learned trial court, against the appellant defendant stating therein that the plaintiff has one shop at the Station Road, Bhadra, which is given on rent to the defendant appellant as tenant. The rent of the suit property is Rs. 60/- per month and the tenancy is monthly tenancy, which starts on first day of the month and ends on the last day of the month. The defendant had not paid the rent for more than three years ,therefore, the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), through his counsel on 10.03.2004, which was received by the defendant on 12.03.2004 and the tenancy expired on 31.03.2004. Even after termination of the tenancy, the defendant is in possession of the property as a trespasser. After termination of the tenancy by legal notice plaintiff respondent is entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiff defendant also filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 2160/-. He further prayed for decreeing the suit for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month till he gets the possession of the property.

5. The defendant in the written statement took several objections stating that the plaintiff respondent is not the sole owner of the property, because after the death of his father Mr. Loon Karan, all the brothers are the co-owners of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent has no right to file the suit . He further denied the fact of starting of the tenancy from the first day of the month and even he denied the service of the notice under section 106 of the Act. The learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties ordered to frame the following issues:-

"1. Whether the suit of plaintiff under TP Act is not maintainable due to old rent act applicable in this area? (Defendant)

2. Whether the rent of this shop was Rs. 60 and whether the defendant has not paid rent to the plaintiff from 1.5.2001 to 31.3.2004 and total of Rs. 2160/- is due to defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover this money? (Plaintiff)

3. Whether the defendant remained no tenant of plaintiff after 31.3.2004 under section 106 TP Act and whether the tenancy expired on the mid night of the same day? (Plaintiff)

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from defendant at the rate of Rs. 60 per month? (Plaintiff)

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get back the possession of the rented shop from defendant due to expiry of tenancy? (Plaintiff)

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? (Defendant)

7. Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the suit? (Defendant)

8. Relief.''

6. The plaintiff respondent examined himself as PW/1 and defendant examined himself as DW/1. The plaintiff produced four documents and the defendant produced two documents in their support respectively. Counsel for the appellant contended that the issues, as decided by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court suffers from illegality and irregularity and is not based on sound principles and on appreciation of the evidence both the courts have erred in appreciating the evidence of the5 plaintiff and defendant and holding that by issuing the notice under section 106 of the Act, the tenancy stood terminated because no legal notice was served. He further contended that the documentary evidence as produced by the plaintiff respondent has been relied on by the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court and the first appellate court and he further contended that the issue as decided by the learned courts below, does not require any interference at this stage because no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

8-9. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant in his memo of appeal has proposed the following substantial questions of law :-

"(1) Whether the suit filed by the respondent-appellant was barred by the principle of res-judicate?

(ii) Whether the suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was maintainable?

(iii) Whether the provisions of old Rent Control Act are applicable ?.

(iv) Whether the notice under section 106 T.P.Act was properly served upon the appellant?.

(v) Whether the appellant is defaulter in payment of rent?

(vi) Whether the appellant is tenant of respondent?

(vii) Whether the respondent has right to evict the appellant from the shop in dispute?

(viii) the appellant craves leave to add and supplement more substantial question of law at the time of arguments. "

10. Issue No.1 is regarding the controversy that whether the suit of the plaintiff under the Act, is not maintainable due to the Old Rent Act applicable. The learned trial court decided this issue against the defendant on 05.12.2005. It is admitted position that the New Rent Control Act came into force in the year 2001 and after coming into force of this Act, the Old Rent Control Act has been superseded and, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit under the Act is not maintainable, does not carry any force and, therefore ,issue No.1 as decided by the learned7 trial court and affirmed by the learned first appellate court, cannot be said to be illegal or irregular and the same is affirmed.

11. The burden of proving issue No. 2 is on plaintiff and the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the pleadings that the rent from 01.05.2004 to 31.03.2004 is Rs. 2160/-. The defendant has not produced any rent receipts in rebuttal of the oral evidence of the plaintiff and thus, issue No.2 decided by the learned trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court is also affirmed.

12. Regarding issue No.3 the main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the defendant has admitted his signatures on the receipt of the notice served under section 106 of the Act, but the signature does not bear the date on which it has been received. It was received by the defendant , therefore, in the absence of any particular date, tenancy cannot be said to have not expired on the expiry of 15 days' notice.

13. I have perused the judgment of both the courts. The signature on the notice has been admitted by the defendant8 and when he has denied in the written statement even the issuance of notice under section 106 of the Act, the evidence produced by the defendant suffers from inherent contradictions and simply on the basis of not putting the date on service of the notice, the receipt of notice cannot be disbelieved and accordingly, issue No.3 decided in favour of the plaintiff is affirmed.

14. Issue No.4 is relating to entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 60/- per month as mesne property. It is the settled position of law that when under section 106 of the Act tenancy has been terminated by legal notice and the tenant is still occupying the said property as a trespasser after the termination of the tenancy, the land lord is not entitled to have rent of the property but is mesne property. In view of the settled position of law, issue No.4 decided by the learned trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court is affirmed.

15. Issue No.5 is a co-lateral issue to issue No.3 . When issue No.3 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff, the findings arrived upon by the learned trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court on issue No.5, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal , therefore, it is affirmed. 9

16. Issue No.6 and 7 are simply rebuttal of issue No.3 and 5 although these issues have been decided jointly by the trial court . The learned trial court held that from the document Ex.4, partition deed of the family settlement of the plaintiff who got the disputed property as the owner and no rebuttal of evidence has been produced by the defendant- appellant so as to disbelieve the execution of Ex.4. As per Ex.4 family settlement, plaintiff respondent is the owner of the disputed pro

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

perty and being the owner, he has all right to file a suit after serving the notice under section 106 of the Act for possession and further after expiry of 15 days notice the plaintiff was entitled to have possession of the property and he got the cause of action on 31.03.2004. The learned appellate court also affirmed issue No.6 and 7 as decided against the defendant appellant and the same is affirmed. 17. Since the finding on issue No.2,3,4 and 5 are affirmed by this Court as decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent, the findings on issue No.6 and 7 affirmed by this Court against the defendant , this second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, on which it requires to be admitted and the substantial question as proposed by the10 appellant in the memo of appeal, does not involve in this appeal. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage and the judgment of the learned trial court, as affirmed by the first appellate court is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 Divya Aashirwad Properties Private Limited, Haryana Versus Prakash Chand Chajard National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Prem Chand Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
26-06-2020 Gian Chand Thakur Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-06-2020 Siri Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Versus Surinder Singh Supreme Court of India
08-06-2020 Ashok Kumar & Others Versus Ramesh Chand & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-06-2020 Subhash Chand Garg & Others Versus M/S H.K.S. Developers Private Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-05-2020 Hukum Chand Deswal Versus Satish Raj Deswal Supreme Court of India
01-05-2020 Bank of Baroda Erstwhile Dena Bank Versus Suresh Chand Seth & Others High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 MCD V/S Ramesh Chand High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Diwan Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-02-2020 Gajanand & Another V/S Nirbhay Chand High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-02-2020 Suresh Chand & Another Versus Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Ashok Chand Kothari Versus Alpna & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-02-2020 Prem Chand Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Kajal V/S Jagdish Chand and Others. Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 Mehar Chand Bhatoya Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
24-01-2020 The Union of India Through General Manager & Others Versus Rohit Chand High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Gurmail Chand Versus State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Padam Chand Kothari, Proprietor M/s. Paras Padam Kothari Versus Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-01-2020 Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. Versus Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Jagdish Chand & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-01-2020 C. Mahaveer Chand & Another Versus The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra C.I.D. - Pune Versus Mohammed Hanif Shaikh Chand Maniyar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-12-2019 Surender Singh Chadha Versus Subhash Chand Saini High Court of Delhi
09-12-2019 Prakash Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-12-2019 Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Versus Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Another Supreme Court of India
26-11-2019 A. Murugan & Others Versus M/s. Rainbow Foundation Ltd, Anoop Chand Jain, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 T.A. Kodhandaraman Versus Gyan Chand High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Duli Chand Versus State of Rajasthan Supreme Court of India
18-11-2019 Ramesh Chand Versus Marwar Muslim Education & Welfare Society High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
15-11-2019 Gyan Chand Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
01-11-2019 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Versus Karam Chand Thapar & Bros High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Yashwant Singh and Others V/S Trilok Chand and Others. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
24-09-2019 Dina Nath (D ) By Lrs. & Another Versus Subhash Chand Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
19-09-2019 Pritam Arora Versus Manak Chand Jain High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 Chand & Another Versus Ishwar & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-09-2019 Puran Chand Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-09-2019 Prem Chand Versus Panchhi Ram & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-09-2019 Subhash Chand Jain Versus C. Ravindran & Others Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
05-09-2019 Jagdish Chand Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-09-2019 Amit Khandelwal & Another Versus Hem Chand Aluria High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 Jay Kant Mishra Versus M/s. S. Chand & Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 Diwan Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
02-09-2019 Subhash Chand Goel & Others Versus Hans Raj Gupta & Co Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
29-08-2019 Prakash Chand Pradhan Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Sikkim
23-08-2019 Vipan Chand & Another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-08-2019 Tilak Raj Bakshi Versus Avinash Chand Sharma (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
20-08-2019 Nihal Chand (Died) & Others Versus Chitram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-08-2019 Dr. Bareet Chand Versus IMS Engineering College & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2019 Dalip Kumar Gupta Versus Kushal Chand Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
05-08-2019 State of Haryana & Others Versus Prem Chand & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-08-2019 Sumitra Devi Versus Hoshiar Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-07-2019 Central Bank of India & Others Versus Tara Chand Supreme Court of India
25-07-2019 M/s. Hotel Asia the Dawn Versus Laxmi Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
25-07-2019 Shobby Chand Surana & Another Versus Mohammad N. Rasheed & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2019 Prem Chand Verma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-07-2019 Tara Chand Versus Rakesh Kashyap High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-07-2019 Trigun Chand Thakur Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
04-07-2019 Mohd.Chand Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-06-2019 Mahavir Multi Media, Chennai, Represented by Prakash Chand Chordia, Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2019 Tikam Chand Rathi Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-06-2019 Gauri Shanker Versus Laxmi Chand High Court of Delhi
14-06-2019 Amar Nath Versus Bhagat Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-05-2019 Master Jagmohan (Minor) & Others Versus Amar Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-05-2019 Prakash Chand Abhani Versus Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Ved Ram Versus Man Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-05-2019 State of Manipur Versus Khundrakpam David Chand High Court of Manipur
22-05-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Prahlad Chand Gurjar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-05-2019 Gora Chand Chatterjee Versus Karan Kumhare & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-05-2019 Chand Kaur Versus Mani Ram & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-04-2019 State of Rajasthan Versus Nemi Chand Mahela & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2019 Tara Chand & Others Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
17-04-2019 Lal Chand Versus Trust Prabh Dayal Shah Moti Ram Shah & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
16-04-2019 Ramesh Chand Versus Shyama Arora High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 M/s. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. & Another Versus Manik Chand Somani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-04-2019 Sheetal Ghosh Versus Ganesh Chand Jain High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2019 Sukumar Chand Jain & Others Versus DDA & Others High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-04-2019 Tara Chand & Others Versus Siri Pal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-03-2019 Chand Kaur (D) Thr.Lrs. Versus Mehar Kaur (D) Thr.Lrs. Supreme Court of India
19-03-2019 Atul Gupta & Others Versus S. Chand & Company Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
18-03-2019 Dinesh Chand Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-03-2019 Chand Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
12-03-2019 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another Versus Gopi Chand Atreja Supreme Court of India
12-03-2019 Mukesh Chand Versus The State(NCT) of Delhi & Another Supreme Court of India
05-03-2019 Nitesh Jain Mangal Chand Versus The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Serivce Tax Intelligence, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2019 Ramesh Chand Gupta & Others Versus State of Raj & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
25-02-2019 Subhash Chand Versus State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
25-02-2019 MMTC Limited Versus M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-02-2019 L. Ashok Chand & Others Versus Authorised Officer & Chief Manager, Indian Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras