1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1028/2008. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana. VERSUS Addl.Civ.Judge (Jr.Div.), Jaipur (West), Jaipur & Anr. 27.03.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Pradeep Kalwania, for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Singh, for the respondents No.2. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure-5) by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for recalling the original patta of the plot No.8-B, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur has been rejected. The suit has been filed by the non-petitioner No.2, the landlord for eviction against the petitioner- defendant-tenant. In the suit, the plaintiff has claimed the eviction on the ground interalia of default in the payment of rent as well as personal bonafide necessity. The defendant-petitioner filed his written statement which is available on record as Annexure-1 and as per the aforesaid written statement, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner-tenant sought to point out that the defendant-tenant has raised an 2 objection with regard to the title of the landlord which is based upon the alleged Will executed by Smt.Rajendra Kaur Ahluwalia. Smt.Rajendra Kaur Aluwalia was the grandmother of the plaintiff-non petitioner No.2. In the application submitted under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C., the petitioner has sought the intervention of the court for summoning the original patta of the plot No.8-B, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur. In the written statement, the petitioner sought to contend that he had taken the premises from one Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur who is the mother of the plaintiff- landlord, respondent No.2. All that the defendant- petitioner has sought in the application is the production of the patta of the plot in dispute. So far as the objection which is there in the written statement is concerned, the same is to the effect that Amardeep, the respondent No.2 is not the landlord on account of the fact that the Will in question, which is alleged to have been executed by Smt.Rajendra Kaur, is a colourable Will (विसयत िदखावटी है) and the said Will even if taken to be correct is not in respect of the portion for which the suit has been filed and which was rented out to the defendant-petitioner- tenant. It is not in dispute that the premises had been let out to the defendant-petitioner-tenant by the mother of the plaintiff-landlord Amardeep. The narration in the Will which has been filed as Annexure-2 is to the effect that since Amardeep is the minor, during his minority, 3 his mother Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur will have the right to utilize it (the property) and dispose it in the manner best suited to her and no other person except the above two, namely, the daughter in law and grandson will have any right. This fact finds mention on page 3 of the Will in the first paragraph. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, more particularly when it is admitted that Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur the mother of respondent No.2 Amardeep (minor) had let out the premises in dispute to the petitioner- tenant, then as per the Will of Smt.Rajendra Kaur she had done so in the capacity as the mother of Amardeep (minor). As per the definition of the landlord as contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 under Section 3 sub-section (iii) which provides that the landlord is one who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant, the petitioner can have no grievance having once accepted the tenancy of the premises through Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur. In accordance with the aforesaid definition both the persons who is receiving as well as the person who is entitled to receive the rent are the landlord for the purposes of the Act and the suit can be filed by either of them. 4 As per the Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 no tenant or any person claiming through such tenant shall be permitted to deny the title of such immovable property of the landlord. Admittedly, to the premises in dispute, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur, the mother of the plaintiff-respondent No.2. As per the Will Smt.Kanwaljeet Kaur was directed to manage the property for Amardeep, the landlord-plaintiff- respondent No.2 herein during minority of the landlord. The defendant having entered into the possession as a tenant cannot now be permitted to inquire into and challenge the title of the landlord and for that purpose requisition and seek production of patta i.e. the title-deed of Plot No.8-B, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur as he is estopped from doing so under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the facts and circumstances, while affirming the order impugned dated 22.11.2007 agreeing with the reasonings given by the learned trial court in addition to what has been said above, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.