SHEIKH NOOR Vs. SHEIKH G S IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the trial Court which was duly confirmed by the first appellate Court, and later in the High Court the appellant tenants (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") have filed these appeals. The Courts below have disposed of proceedings by a common order as the facts and the point of law involved in both the cases are the same. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are : House No. 2690 on City Survey No. 1900 of Bhusawal are the dismissed premises. One Mr. Mohammad Yahya was the owner. He let out the property to the appellants in the year 1946. After partition Mohammad Yahya migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. He came to India in the year 1957 and collected the arrears of rent. For future he directed the tenants that the rent be paid to Fatimabi. The appellants accepted the arrangement and started paying the rent to Fatimabi. Municipal taxes which were required to be paid by the tenants were not paid in respect of the said house and a warrant of attachment was issued by the Municipal Council, Bhusawal. In execution of that warrant the house in dispute was ordered to be sold by public auction. Fatimabi purchased the house in dispute in auction. Sale in her favour was confirmed. On 15-4-1976 she transferred her ownership rights in favour of respondent Sheikh Ghasu Sheikh Ibrahim (since deceased) represented by LRs. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"). On 16-4-1976 Fatimabi addressed a communication to the appellants informing them that she had transferred her rights in the property in favour of the respondent and directed the tenants to pay the arrears of rent due prior to the date of transfer as well as future rent to the respondent. This letter of attornment was received by the appellants. The respondent-landlord thereafter issued a notice to the tenants calling upon them to pay the rent due for the tenements in their occupation. The appellants refused to recognise the respondent as their landlord and pay the rent. Thereafter, the respondent filed separate suits seeking eviction against the appellants on the grounds : (i) that the appellants were defaulters as they had failed to pay rent due for more than six months, and (ii) that the respondent required the house bona fide for his personal occupation.

(3.) After service of notice the appellants entered appearance. They did not seriously dispute the fact that they were in arrears of rent as had been stated by the respondent. They denied the title of the respondent and the relationship of landlord and tenant with him. They also challenged the sale deed executed by Fatimabi in his favour. They also stated that the transfer by the Municipal Council of the property in dispute to Fatimabi was no sale in they eye of law, being illegal. According to them, Fatimabi got the house transferred in her favour fraudulently. That Fatimabi was entitled to receive only. They did not recognise her as the owner of the said house. They challenged the title of the respondent and refused to accept him as the owner of the house till he got his title decided from a competent Court having jurisdiction.