CSA -157/08 - LRs. of Smt. Narayani Bai Vs. Brijlal & Ors. : Judgment dt.21.8.08 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT LRs. of Smt. Narayani Bai Vs. Brijlal & Ors. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.157/2008 against the judgment and decree dt.27.2.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.2/98 by ADJ, Nagaur. Date of order : 21st August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. R.J. Punia for Mr. L.R. Punia for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Chitlangi for the respondents. --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant- tenants against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dt.27.2.2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1997 of the learned trial court and thus, both the courts below by concurrent findings have decreed the eviction of the defendants from the suit premises in question. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants Mr. Punia submitted that the rent note Exhibit 1 giving the suit premises, a residential house, to the defendant w.e.f. 1.2.1968 at the rate of Rs.12/- only for one year was a lease deed and since the same was not registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the same was not admissible evidence and, therefore, the learned courts below have erred in directing eviction on the basis of the said evidence treating the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant as that of CSA -157/08 - LRs. of Smt. Narayani Bai Vs. Brijlal & Ors. : Judgment dt.21.8.08 2/3 landlord and tenant. Secondly he submitted that after the death of Jhumar Lal, the original tenant, the tenancy being at Will it was not heritable and, therefore, the defendants could not be evicted from the suit premises. 3. These averments are opposed by Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, who submitted that in view of the judgments of this Court in 1959 RLW 353 and 1995 RLW 14 the tenancy at Will has also been held to be heritable and, therefore, even after death of original tenant Jhumar Lal, the legal representatives of the said tenant Jhumarl Lal could be evicted the from the suit premises. He further submitted that the question relating to rent note being not registered and, therefore, being not admissible in evidence, was never raised before the courts below and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court in the present second appeal. He, therefore, submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present case and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsels and perused the impugned judgments of both the courts below and judgments cited at the Bar. 5. Since both the courts below have concurrently found that on the basis of rent note Exhibit 1 there was a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant that of the landlord and tenant, the said findings of the courts below appear to be justified and are not required to be upset in the present second appeal. These findings cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Exhibit 1 rent note CSA -157/08 - LRs. of Smt. Narayani Bai Vs. Brijlal & Ors. : Judgment dt.21.8.08 3/3 clearly stipulates that the defendants would handover the vacant possession of the said house whenever demanded by the landlord and that the rent would be Rs.12/- for one year. The said tenancy was created in favour of the original tenant Jhumar Lal by the landlord Mohan Lal way back on 1.2.1968. The said rent note is duly signed by both the parties and bears revenue stamp of one Ana. The contents of the same have never been disputed by the defendants nor the signatures thereon. Since the said rent note cannot be said to be a lease deed requiring registration under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Registration Act, 1908, the question sought to be raised by the appellant-defendants before this Court even if allowed to be raised at this stage does not help the appellant-defendant in any manner. The courts below cannot be said to have entered into any perversity in relying upon the said rent note in any manner. This Court finds no substantial question of law to be arising in the present second appeal. 6. The second appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.54 babulal/-