[2025:RJ-JP:16858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 131/2008 1. Lallu Ram S/o Shri Mool Chand Deceased Through His Legal Representatives- 1/1. Mahesh Chand S/o Late Shri Lallu Ram, Old Katla, Alwar 1/2. Vishnu S/o Late Shri Lallu Ram, Old Katla, Alwar 1/3. Prakash S/o Late Shri Lallu Ram, Old Katla, Alwar ---Defendants-Appellants Versus Mandir Moorti Shri Sitaramji Maharaj, Old Katla, Alwar ---Plaintiff-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 23/04/2025 The present appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Appeal No.63/2002, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent (for short ‘the plaintiff’), set-aside the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.154/1989 by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff’s suit against the defendant on account of default in payment of rent. [2025:RJ-JP:16858] (2 of 4) [CSA-131/2008] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant-Lalluram to the effect that the defendant had taken the suit property on rent from adoptive father of the plaintiff 32 years ago from the date of filing the suit on monthly rent of Rs.7/- per month. After the death of plaintiff’s adoptive father, the defendant continued to pay the rent of the suit property to the plaintiff after April, 1980. In the last, he paid the rent to the plaintiff in March, 1988 and thereafter from April, 1988, he did not pay any rent and committed default in payment of rent. It was further alleged that the said suit premises was let out on rent for godown but it was being used for residential purposes. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments of the plaint to the effect that for the payment of arrears of rent, the defendants had sent money order of Rs. 21/- in the month of June, 1988 which was not accepted by the plaintiff. The defendants had again sent the money order of rent of Rs.28/- in the month of April, May, June and July, 1988 which were also not accepted by the plaintiff. So, the defendants had not committed any default in paying the rent. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dkuwuh O;frØe fd;k gS] og fMQkYVj gS\ 2- D;k izfroknh Lis’ky dksLV ds 300@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ [2025:RJ-JP:16858] (3 of 4) [CSA-131/2008] To prove its case, the plaintiff got examined Ajay Sharma as PW-1. To prove his case, the defendant-Lallu got himself examined as DW-1 and exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.07.2002 while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, on account of first default, granted benefit of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act to the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 16.07.2002, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008 while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, set-aside the judgment & decree passed by the trial court, decreed the plaintiff’s suit and directed the defendants to handover the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff within two months. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits findings given by the appellate court are against the law and the material available on record. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008 committed an error in passing the eviction decree against the defendants. It is an admitted position that the defendants had sent the money order twice for payment of arrears of rent but the plaintiff had not accepted the same. Learned senior counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendant-Lalluram was suffering from illness, so he could not deposit/pay the rent within time. The said delay in depositing/paying the rent was condoned by the trial court. So, the trial court rightly granted the benefit of first default to the [2025:RJ-JP:16858] (4 of 4) [CSA-131/2008] defendant. So, the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008 passed by the appellate court be set-aside. Despite service of notice, none has put his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments and decree passed by the appellate court as well as the trial court. The trial court found the defendant as a defaulter on account of delay payment of rent from April 1988 to December, 1988 but no appeal was filed by the defendant in this regard. Subsequently, rent for the month of July, 1993 was deposited within a delay of 25 days on the ground that the defendant fell ill from 12.08.1993 to 08.09.1993 and deposited the rent on 10.09.1993. In this regard, the defendant Laluram submitted the medical documents which were found forged by the appellate court. So, in my considered opinion, the appellate court has not committed any error in passing the eviction decree against the defendants, therefore no ground is made out to admit the second appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the second appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/47