KALI SARAN Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated July 16,1984 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a second appeal. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.

(2.) One Inder Singh (since deceased) obtained an ex parte order from the Rent Controller for eviction of one Natha Singh, whom he claimed to be a tenant under him, from a factory situated at Gill Road, Ludhiana and in execution thereof took possession of the premises. Thereafter on September 28, 1973, the appellant herein filed an application seeking an order under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) alleging that he had been illegally dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction made against Natha Singh and praying for restoration of his possession. He contended that Inder Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Rattan Singh, who were the members of a joint Hindu family and were coparceners, were owners of the factory building in question. Bhagwan Singh, as one of the members of the said joint Hindu family, let out the factory building to him (the appellant) on behalf of the joint Hindu family on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- on July 10,1958. Since then, the appellant contended, he was in occupation of the disputed premises as a tenant inducted by Bhagwan Singh on behalf of the joint Hindu family and he had been paying rent regularly to Bhagwan Singh who had been issuing receipts. He further contended that taking advantage of his absence Inder Singh, in conspiracy with Natha Singh, obtained possession of the factory building in execution of the order for eviction by breaking open the lock. According to the appellant he was in possession of the disputed premises in his own right and, therefore, he could not be dispossessed therefrom in the manner it was done. He asserted that he was not occupying the premises on behalf of Natha Singh.

(3.) In opposing the application Inder Singh and Natha Singh pleaded that the disputed factory building had since been razed to the ground and as such the application seeking order under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Code was not maintainable. They also denied that the appellant was in possession of the disputed premises in his own right. According to them Bhagwan Singh had no right whatsoever to induct the appellant into the premises in dispute, particularly, in view of the fact that it was a self-acquired property of Inder Singh. They further averred that the relationship between Inder Singh and Bhagwan Singh was strained and the appellant in connivance with Bhagwan Singh had filed the application. Lastly, they contended that the possession of the premises had been taken rightfully in execution of a decree passed against Natha Singh.