The appellant thereafter filed first appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt on 9th Novem ber, 1984.
GADA NAHIN GAYA HAI.
The High Court in the judgment under appeal has numbered that the plaintiff appellant had number disputed that the advertise ment board was installed on the roof of the shop.
The board of his shop was fixed below the front of his shop in the name of Sharan Optician, the photo of which is Ex.
Paragraph 8 as reads as under In English The defendant has numberright to place the Board of the Advertising Agency on the roof of the shop without permission of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Hindi Original VAD PATRA KA PAIRA 8 SAVIKAR NAHIN HAl.
By the judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1987 the learned District Judge allowed the said appeal holding, inter alia, that by displaying the advertisement board the appellant had number caused any material alteration of the premises and display of such advertisements hoardings did number amount to parting with possession of the roof of the premises.
Accordingly, a decree was passed against the appellant for causing material alteration and for parting with the possession of the roof but numberdecree was passed by the trial companyrt on ground of default because the said default was held by the learned Trial Judge to be the first default.
IS SIGN BOARD LAGANE MAIN VADI KO LIKHIT ANUMATI LENA AVASHAK NAHIN THA, VIASE VADI KE PURAN GYAN MAIN YEH BOARD LAGAYA THA TATHA AISA KARNE MAIN VADI NE KABHI APATTI NAHIN UTHAYEE, ARTHAT VADI KI AWAKRITI NAHI HAI.
In putting up this sign board, there was numbernecessity of obtaining written permission of the plaintiff.
The expenses towards the painting and fixing the board and writing were met by him.
After recording the said evidence, the trial companyrt recorded that the companynsel for the defendant was absent and thereupon closed the case, without, however, entering into the question as to why the endorsement was made.
The English translation of the said evidence of the defendant appellant was filed on behalf of the appellant at the heating of this appeal.
After the case was remanded, the trial companyrt directed the plaintiff to appear before the companyrt and to subject himself to cross examination by the defendant and also to produce his evidence, if any.
In respect of default, on an analysis of the dates of payment it was held that there was numberdefault in payment of rent for six months.
The angles have number been embedded.
As the plaintiff neither submitted himself for further cross examination number produced any other evidence or witness in support of the plaint the defendant led defence evidence and got himself examined.
Hindi Original YEH KI BOARD JO VIVADGRAST DUKAN JO KI PRATIVADI KE PASS VADI KI AUR SE KIRAYE PAR HAl, KI CHHAT PAR LAG RAHA HAl VAH VIGYAPAN ADVERTISEMENT KA BOARD HAI JISKO PRATIVADI NE VADI KI ANUMATI PRAPAT KIYE BINA ADVERTIS ING AGENCY KO LAGANE DE DIYA HAl JISKA KI PRATIVADI KO SWATEY KOYEE ADHIKAR NAHIN HAl.
The case of the appellant was that though the appellant had taken the premises on rent on the basis of oral tenancy on 1st August, 1971, the rent note in fact was executed on 30th May, 1972.
Paragraph 9 of the Written Statement is as follows In English The defendant denies all the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Plaint.
However, a photograph of the board was pro duced by the plaintiff and the same was marked as Ex.
TATHA VADGRAST DUKAN KA PANE SADHARAN VAVSAYE MAIN HI UPYOG KAR RAHA HAl AVAM SADHI KAR KAR RAHA HAI.
Hindi Original VAD PATRA KE PAIRA 5 KE LIYE NIVEDAN HAI KE PRATIVADI NE EK SIGN BOARD VADGRAST DUKAN KI CHHAT PAR LAGAYA HAl PAR YEH MITHYA HAl KI DUKAN KI ATHVA CHHAT KI DIWAR ATHVA FARSH MAIN ANGLE LAGAYE HO VAH SIGN BOARD BINA DUKAN KI DIWARON ATHVA CHHAT KE FARSH KO KISI BHANTI HANI PAHUCHAE HUVE LAGAYA GAYA HAl.
The sign board has been placed without damaging the walls or the floor of the roof in any manner whatsoever.
VADI KO KOYEE SWATAV NAHIN HAl KI VAH MITHYA ADHARO PAR DUKAN KHALI KARVAYE NA TO PARTIVADI NE KOYEE CHOOK KI HAl, KIRAYA DENE MAIN UAR NA HI USNE DUKAN PAR KISI KO BOARD LAGANE DIYA HAl AUR NA HI KOYEE MUKTI BHOG KIRAYE LI HUEE SAMPATI KA PARTIVADI KE KISI BHI BHAG KA KISI KO BHI HYA HAl.
Hindi Original VAD PATRA KA PAIRA 9 SARVATHA ASWIKAR HAl.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1988 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.
In particular the defendant states that the plaintiff has numberright to bring the present suit of eviction which has been filed on false grounds.
The said Board is affixed in cement pillars should be pot and for affix ing the said boards neither the roof number the walls of the shop were dug The Board is affixed permanently and I advertise the business of parties and get its payment.
VAH PRATIVADI KE POORAN BHUGTI BHOG MAIN HAl.
In 1974, I advertised for Bhatia at the Board in which I have written that I have zeator I have strength, a picture tractor was also made there I used to take Rs.
Against the decree of the trial companyrt, the first appeal was filed before the learned District Judge and as stated hereinbefore, at the final hearing of the appeal, the first Appellate Court held that the defendant was number given adequate opportunity to either cross examine the plaintiff or to adduce his evidence and on that ground the order of remand was made.
In spite of several opportunities the plaintiff did number appear before the Court and submit himself to cross examination.
On remand, the trial companyrt held that the appel lant had caused material alteration by fixing the board on.
He asserted that he was also running the business of advertisement by way of display of various advertisements hoardings boards at various places in the city of Udaipur.
I have number parted with possession of any portion of the roof of the shop to anyone.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Hindi Original YEH KI PARTIVADI KE KO BINA VADI SE POCCHHE DUKAN KI CHHAT PAR ADVERTISING AGENCY KO BOARD LAGANE DENE KA KOYEE ADHIKAR NAHIN HAI.
PRATIVADI NE BOARD, KISI KO LAGANE NAHIN DIYA HAl APITU SWAM LAGAYA HAl.
2, one board of the defendant was fixed in the name of Sharan Optician on the disputed shop and above it there was advertisement board which was of a tractor and fixed in front of the roof.
From the said evidence it would appear, he had stated, inter alia, as follows I have affixed the Board on this shop for advertisement.
Tapas Ray, S.K. Jain and P. Agarwal for the Appellant.
PRATIVADI SWAM NE VAH BOARD LAGAYA HAl TATHA APNA SADHARAN VAVASAYE KARTE HUVE LAGAYA HAl.
1500 for 3 years for advertisement out of which painting of Board, writing expenditure was mine.
Paragraph 5 of the Written Statement reads as follows In English With regard to paragraph 5 of the Plaint the defendant states that the Defendant had displayed a sign board on the roof of the disputed shop but it is false to state that any angle has been fixed or embedded on the wall of the shop or of the roof or on the floor of the roof.
This fact is undisput ed.
2747 of 1988.
On or about 20th April 1978, the trial companyrt decreed the suit on the ground of default in payment of rent, material alter ation and subletting.
77 of 1987.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, who remanded the case back to the trial companyrt for trial on all the three issues, on the ground that the appellant had number been al lowed to cross examine the respondent or to adduce evidence in defence.
Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Respondent.
The respondent had filed the suit for eviction of the ten ant appellant on three grounds, namely, i that the tenant appellant had parted with possession of the roof of the said shop room by putting up an advertisement board by putting up such advertisement board, fixing the same on the roof of the said shop room with iron angles, the appellant had caused material alteration to the premises and iii the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent.
In the said shop the appellant carried on the business of opticals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 23rd February, 1988.
The appellant is the tenant in the suit premises.
