WENEY DSOUZE Vs. G A CONCEICAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by the defendant in a suit for possession against judgment of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 16th July, 1976.

(2.) A non-agricultural plot of land admeasuring 1200 sq. yards situated in village Malad belonged to D. B. Conceicao (since deceased). Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 being the brothers and plaintiff No. 5 widow of D. B. Conceicao filed a suit on 28th March, 1959 in the City Civil Court, Bombay for possession of the suit land against the present appellant. D. B. Conceicao had died on March 3, 1959 before filing of the above suit. The suit was brought on the ground that the defendant No. 1 (appellant) had entered into possession of the suit land under a writing of October 3, 1953. In the said letter it was stated that the suit land admeasuring about 1200 sq. yards had been given on a ten years lease. The defendant had to pay annually Rs. 240/-. It was alleged that the said lease was required to be registered compulsorily and in the absence of such registration the lease was void and the defendants were trespassers. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 did not pay any amount except a paltry sum of Rs. 50/ - paid at the time when defendant No. 1 was put in possession of the land. Defendants Nos.,2 to 8 were tenants kept by defendant No. 1.

(3.) The appellant admitted that there was an agreement of lease between him and the deceased and that he was also put in possesston of the suit land by the deceased. Accordrig to him, there was no necessity of executing a formal or legal document. As regards the payment of rent, his allegation was that he had offered to pay rent to the landlords but they refused to accept the same. Rent sent by money orders were also refused. The appellant also pleaded protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plea was also taken in the written statement that the City Court had nojurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was a suit between the landlord and the tenant and as such governed by the provisions of the Rent Act. However, this contention was expressly given up at the stage of trial.