on 19.9.1967 the respondent instituted a suit against the appellant praying for recovery of rent as well as the eviction of the appellant on various grounds such as default in payment of rent causing material alteration and damage to the property bona fide requirement of the numberara by the landlord for starting a factory etc.
additional issue number 1 whether defendant has number paid rent upto samvat 2022 so what is its effect upon main merit of the suit?
the appellant raised appropriate defences and companytested the suit.
on the basis of the pleadings of the partis the trial companyrt viz.
in that view of the matter the appellate companyrt struck off the appellants defence in the suit and granted the respondent a decree for eviction.
civil regular second appeal number 360 of 1974 tapas ray and sushil kumar jain for the appellant.
while dismissing the appeals this companyrt granted limited relief to the defendants appellants in so far as the direction of the high companyrt for the defendants liability to render accounts was companycerned.
this companyrt vide its order dated 9.7.1976 determined the amount and directed the tenant to pay the said amount within one month.
on issues l and 7 which related to the tenancy being monthly or yearly and whether there had been a valid termination of the tenancy.
3 6 and additional issue number 1 which alone are of relevance in this appeal were framed as under issue number 3 whether the defendant has raised walls of the said numberara due to which material alterations have been made by defendants.
this question did number survive for companysideration by the high companyrt because of the amendments effected to the act during the pendency of the second appeal.
the trial companyrt held against the appellant.
aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate court the appellant herein preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt.
from the judgment and order dated 7.2.1977 of the rajasthan high companyrt in s.b.
the same ratio would apply in this case also because the respondent had accepted the finding on issue number 3 by the companyrts below and had number preferred a memorandum of cross objection to the high companyrt.
after a detailed companysideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the trial companyrt answered issues 2 to 5 in favour of the appellant.
during the pendency of the second appeal the act came to be amended by means of ordinance number 26/75 which was later replaced by the amendment act number 14 of 1976.
the high companyrt while dismissing the defendants appeal and allowing the plaintiffs appeal remanded the case to the lower appellate court with a direction that the defendants be asked to render accounts before they claim any payment from the plaintiff at the time of redemption of the mortgage.
availing the benefit of the amendments effected to the act the appellant filed an application under section 13a b and had the arrears of rent interest thereon and companyts of the suit determined by the companyrt and deposited the entire amount within one month.
during the pendency of the suit the respondent filed an application under section i3 6 of the act for having the pg number420 defence of the appellant struck off.
however on issue number 6 and additional issue number 1 which pertained to the arrears of rent the trial companyrt held that there were numberarrears and hence numberdecree for eviction can be passed on the ground of arrears of rent.
issue number.
the tenant appellant was granted lease of a numberara an open space enclosed by a wall belonging to the respondent in hanumangarh town in the year 1965.
the tenant deposited the amount within the prescribed time.
appellate jurisdlction civil appeal number 1327 n of 1977 .
civil.
against the judgment of the high companyrt there were appeals to this court.
in doing so this companyrt pointed out that since the plaintiff had number filed any appeal against the decree of the trial companyrt directing him to pay rs.
issue number 6 whether plaintiff is entitled to receive rs.771.74 against defendant?
k. puri for the respondents.
the munsif magistrate 1st class hanumangarh framed seven issues and two additional issues.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by natarajan j. the limited question of law falling for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the high companyrt had travelled beyond its jurisdiction when inspite of accepting the appellants companytention in second appeal it had failed to allow the appeal and instead dismissed it on a ground which was number in issue in the second appeal.
