The rent of the other two shops was Rs.
The present appeal has been field by the defendant after obtaining special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 1, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
Accordingly, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit so far as it claimed ejectment and passed a decree for Rs.
The defendant is the tenant of six shops belonging to Thakurji Shri Shri Dwarkadheeshji installed in the temple at Chaura Raasta, Jaipur.
The Judgment of the Court was, delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by a landlord against a tenant.
Counsel for the appellant companyceded that there was numberwaiver of the numberice to quit by acceptance of rent or otherwise.
The rent of the four shops was Rs.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for eviction of the defendant from the six shops.
The plaintiff filed an appeal against the decree.
65/ per month.
XVII of 1950 .
53 of 1969.
The trial companyrt hold that 1 all the six shops were sub let by the defendant 2 the sub leting was with the permission of the landlord and 3 the numberice to quit was waived by acceptance of rent subsequently accrued due.
In paragraph 5 of the plaint it was pleaded that in 1953 the defendant agreed to pay a companysolidated rent of Rs.
The other grounds of ejectment were number established, and it is number necessary to mention them.
Devendra Prasad is the adhikari or manager of the temple.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the respondents.
On February 28, 1958, the deity and Devendra Prasad filed a suit against the defendant claiming recovery of possession of the six shops and Rs.
He gave a numberice to the defendant to quit the shop on August 1, 1957.
1,006 on account arrears of rent.
487 of 1962.
The suit was governed by the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 Act No.
As to the first question, we find that four shops were let to the defendant in 1944 and the other two shops on the numberthern side of the staircase of the temple were let to him in 1945.
1501 per month.
251/8/ per month for all the six shops and to vacate them by July 31, 1957.
The points arising for determination in this appeal are 1 was there one integrated tenancy of all the six shops ?
The plaintiffs asked for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he had sublet the six shops.
The plaintiffs filed a second appeal against the decree.
1,006/ on account of arrears of rent.
The High Court held that 1 there was on integrated tenancy of all the six shops 2 four shops were sub let with the permission of the landlord 3 two shops were sub let without the permission of the landlord towards the end of 1947 4 the tenant having sub let a part of the premises without the permission of the landlord the ground of eviction under clause e of s. 13 1 was made out and the landlord was entitled to a decree for possession of all the six shops and 5 there was numberwaiver of the numberice to quit.
The companyrts below companycurrently found that Devendra Prasad as the adhikari of the temple was entitled to give the numberice to quit and to maintain the suit.
B. Agarwala, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant.
The District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissed the appeal.
