AJIT CHOPRA Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the legal representative of the original plaintiff Sri R. C. Chopra in the suit bearing Suit No. 25/1 of 1970 on the file of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla District, Simla, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The present suit was filed by the said Sri R. C. Chopra for possession and Rs. 610/- as past mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30-11-1976 for possession but refused to pass a decree for mesne profits. The defendant appealed before the District Court, Simla which dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 23-7-1977. On further appeal by the defendant in R.S.A. No. 70 of 1977, learned single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, by judgment dated 29-10-91 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower Courts and dismissed the suit on a new question, namely, that the present suit was not maintainable in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it stood before the 1976 Amendment. The plaintiff died on 22-10-85, during the pendency of the second appeal. This appeal by Special Leave has been preferred by the plaintiff's legal representatives.

(2.) The property in question belonged originally to one Dewan Chand Bhatia of Simla and the present plaintiff Sri R. C. Chopra purchased the same on 18-6-1957 by way of a registered sale deed. It appears that the plaintiff's vendor Sri Bhatia granted a lease in favour of the respondent-defendant on 10-2-1952. Later, Sri Bhatia filed an eviction petition on 19-7-1955 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on various grounds. The respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The said contention of the tenant was accepted and the eviction case was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Simla on 25-9-1956. The landlord Bhatia's appeal before the Appellate Authority succeeded and appeal was allowed on 30-9-57 holding respondent was a tenant and that grounds existed for his eviction. (It was during the pendency of that first appeal that the present plaintiff purchased the property from Sri Bhatia on 18-6-1957, subject to the decision of the appeal). The respondent-tenant filed a revision in the High Court on 2-1-1958 contending that he was not a tenant and seeking stay of dispossession which was granted on 15-1-1958. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-9-58 holding that the respondent was a tenant. Three months' time was granted for vacation of the premises. The eviction order was not executed for quite some time but the present suit was filed by the appellant (purchaser from Mr. Bhatia) within 12 years from 2-1-1958, the dismissal of the tenant's revision.

(3.) It is the case of Sri R. C. Chopra, the present plaintiff that as a purchaser from Sri Bhatia, by sale deed dated 18-6-1957 he tried to evict the respondent but that the respondent entreated that he be not evicted. The present plaintiff was in Government service and was at Bombay and was being transferred from place to place. Therefore, it is said, the plaintiff agreed afresh to allow the respondent to continue as his tenant. But, it is said, the respondent was not paying rent and this led to the appellant giving a notice on 24-7-1969 to the respondent for eviction and demanding arrears of rent. There was no reply from the respondent.