295 of 2006 and S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.
The Trial Court, after framing the issues in both the suits, by separate judgments on 27.10.2004, answered the issues in favour of the appellant and accordingly decreed the appellants suit and ordered the respondents eviction from the suit premises within a period of two months and pay the damages for use and occupation w.e.f.
On 01.10.1989, the Shop No.11 was let out to Nand Lal, Jitendar Rai Mathur and M s Mayur Auto Repairs on rent on the basis of an oral agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.600/ , which was enhanced to Rs.750/ per month on 01.10.1996 with the companysent of the parties.
1 and 1 a framed by the Trial Court, which read as under Whether the plaintiff trust is exempted from the Rent Act according to the Advertisement No.
The High Court, by the impugned judgments, dismissed the appeals in limine.
Heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned senior companynsel for the appellant Trust and Mr. Puneet Jain, learned companynsel for the respondents.
5/2004 were set aside.
Similarly, on 22.10.1998, the appellant sent a numberice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act to respondent No.1 in respect of Shop No.7 through registered post and terminated the tenancy w.e.f.
The Appellate Court framed additional issues in place of issue Nos.
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.
7 up to 30.06.1998.
Whether having terminated the tenancy by issuing numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, plaintiff is entitled to get the possession?
Whether all the Trustees are necessary parties to the suit?
However, respondent No.1 paid rent only in respect of Shop No.
P 4 11 V.V. and 3/96 dated 04.07.98 published at Page No.51 in the Rajasthan government Gazette Edition dated 06.07.1998?
On 01.10.1985, the Shop No.7 was let out to Nand Lal respondent No.1 on rent on an oral agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.500/ which was enhanced at Rs.625/ per month on 01.10.1996 with the companysent of both parties.
By separate judgments on dated 30.11.2005, the Appellate Court decided issue Nos.
07.02.2013.
However, the respondents did number hand over the possession of both the shops.
The Appellate Court, therefore, did number go into the merits of the case and dismissed the suit.
3 and 4, as extracted above, against the appellant and accordingly allowed the respondents appeals and set aside the judgments and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit Nos.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents filed separate first appeals being Civil Appeal Decree No.3/2005 and Civil Appeal Decree No.4/2005 before the Additional District Judge Fast Track No.2, Pali.
Whether the numberice has been waived on account of accepting the rent after terminating the tenancy through numberice?
On 17.10.1998, the appellant, therefore, sent a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the respondents in respect of Shop No.11 through registered post and terminated the tenancy.
By virtue of numberice, the respondents were informed that their tenancy would terminate w.e.f.
During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant plaintiff filed I.A. No 5 of 2013 and sought permission to file additional documents in support of their case.
Aggrieved by the said judgments, the appellant preferred S.B.Civil Second Appeal Nos.295/2006 and 296/2006 before the High Court.
Whether the plaintiff is a registered Trust, if yes, then its effect?
3034 of 2008 1 Signature Not Verified This appeal is filed by the Plaintiff against the final Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.07.29 135359 IST Reason judgment and orders dated 19.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in B. Civil Second Appeal No.
The appellant along with IA filed one Registration Certificate issued on 07.02.2013 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Jodhpur, Government of Rajasthan Annexure A 3 certifying therein that the appellant plaintiff Trust is registered under the Act w.e.f.
After the enhancement of rent, the respondents stopped paying the rent to the appellant Trust.
15/99 re numbered as 5/2004 against Nand Lal, Jitendar Rai Mathur and M s Mayur Auto Repairs in respect of Shop No.11 and Civil Suit No.14/99 re numbered as 4/2004 against Nand Lal in respect of Shop No.7 before the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division , Pali.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. IN Civil Appeal No.
A prayer was, therefore, made to take this document on record being relevant one for deciding the appeal.
in Civil Appeal Decree Nos.3 and 4 of 2005 whereby the appeals of the respondents defendants were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division , Pali in the Civil Suit No.
The Trust was formed by executing a Trust deed on 31.07.1980.
midnight of 30.11.1998.
The appellant is a public Trust of which Shri Ramanand is the Chairman.
20.11.1998 till the date of handing over the possession of the suit premises i at the rate of Rs.750/ per month in Civil Suit No.5/2004 and ii at the rate of Rs.625/ per month in Civil Suit No.4/2004.
4/2004 and Civil Suit No.
The land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas situated at Pali was allotted by the Government on 14.05.1982 in the name of Shri Rama Nand and the patta was accordingly granted to him.
midnight of 30.11.1998.
He then companystructed shops on this land.
4/2004 and 5/2004.
Against both the judgments, this appeal by special leave is filed by the plaintiff Trust before this Court.
Subsequently, on 23.10.1998, the respondents gave a cheque to the appellant against the rent in respect of Shop No.11 up to the month of November and damages on account of use and occupation for the month of December, 1998 and respondent No.1 gave a cheque in respect of Shop No.7 against the rent up to the month of November and damages on account of use and occupation for the month of December, 1998.
It was held that since the plaintiff Trust was number registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the suit itself was number companypetent for want of registration in the light of bar companytained in Section 29 of the Act.
Respondent No.1 did number reply to this numberice also.
On 20.01.1999, the appellant instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent being Civil Suit No.
296 of 2006 whereby the High Court, by separate judgments, dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 30.11.2005 of the Additional District Judge Fast Track No.2, Pali Raj.
