TEJ BHAN MADAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant arises out of and is directed against the judgment dated 10-7-1980 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5661 of 1979 (reported in AIR 1980 All 320) rejecting the appellant's challenge to the decrees of ejectment granted in favour of the third respondent-landlord on the ground that there was a denial of the title of the landlord within the meaning, and for purposes, of S. 3(l)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act III of 1947).

(2.) The necessary and material facts may briefly be stated :

(3.) The provocation for the denial on the part of the appellant of the third respondent's title was this. It would appear that in a separate litigation which culminated in the judgment dated 6-7-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 260 of 1968 between the said Mainavati on the one hand and a certain Chamanlal on the other, it was held that what Mainavati had acquired under the execution sale of 24-4-1956 was not the totality of all rights and interests in the property, but was only such right, title and interest as the judgment-debtor, i.e. Dhoomchand, had and that the Court-sale did not convey to Mainavati the interest of Rajuldevi, the widow of Shamboolal Jain. It was also held that Chamanlal who obtained a decree against both Dhoomchand and the estate of Shamboolal would, notwithstanding the sale in favour of Mainavati, be entitled to bring the residuary interests in the same property for sale in his execution. Appellant sought to raise this defect in Mainavati's title. But the point to note, however, is that the appellant had attorned the tenancy in favour of Gopinath Agarwal, paid rents throughout the period during which Gopinath's interest subsisted. The question was whether despite this attornment, the appellant could assail Gopinath's title. Appellant sought to assert that the sale in favour of Gopinath was void and conveyed nothing.