KARTA RAM RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. RAM BILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by defendant No. 2 arise out of judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeals.

(3.) The short facts are that a shop measuring 90 in length and 18 in width situate in Jind Mandi was originally owned by one Ram Gopal and upon his death, his two sons, namely, Jai Narain and Chet Ram inherited the same in equal shares. In the year 1956, Chet Ram - one of the sons of Ram Gopal, who was co-sharer to the extent of half share, let out front portion of the shop to M/s. Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass - defendant No. 2 with the consent and authority of the other co-sharer Jai Narain. Subsequently, Chet Ram died and upon his death, his sons and daughters sold their half share in the disputed shop to one Yashpal - defendant No. 1 under registered sale deed dated 20th August, 1975. Thereafter on 26th September, 1975, Jai Narain, another co-sharer filed a suit for partition of his half share in the aforesaid shop in which Yashpal, the purchaser, and the firm M/s. Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The share of the plaintiff in the shop in question was not disputed. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of his half share in the shop in question and a Local Commissioner was appointed to effect partition who submitted report to the effect that the shop in dispute should be divided horizontally that is to say in such a way that one party would get the front portion opening in the Mandi and other would get its back portion. The plaintiff filed objections to the report of the Commissioner and according to him the shop should have been partitioned longitudinally by constructing a wall through and through, which partition would be a just one between the parties and partitioning the shop horizontally by giving front portion to one party and back portion to another would be unjust and unequal especially when the front portion of shop, which opens in the Mandi, would be more valuable one whereas back portion less valuable. Defendant No.2 who was the tenant in the front portion of the shop objected to the prayer made by the plaintiff stating therein that by erecting a wall, his tenanted premises would be divided into two portions which would amount to evicting him from a portion of the tenanted premises without taking recourse to the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Defendant No. 1, who is purchaser from Chet Ram, took the stand that the objections to the local commissioners report filed by the plaintiff were fit to be rejected.