PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAIBUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions were referred for consideration by the Division Bench and accordingly they have come up before us for hearing .

(2.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved, they are heard together, and disposed of by the following order.

(3.) THE respondents contested the claim of the petitioners on several grounds. The first respondent and respondents 2 and 3 filed separate objections. Most of the grounds urged by them were common. It may be summarised as follows: - The respondents disputed the right of the petitioners to seek possession as landlords. They asserted that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors -in -interest recovered any rent from the respondents for the last more than 70 years (The eviction petition is of the year 1969 and the objections also must have been filed immediately thereafter). Respondents pointed out that the right of the petitioners, if any, stood extinguished by lapse of time to recover the rent. Permanent structures have been put up on the original lease -hold. Respondents also question the relationship of the petitioners to the original lessor Lachiramsing. They pointed out that on the expiry of the alleged lease period no steps were taken to obtain possession of the premises and therefore the title of the lessor was lost by adverse possession and prescription. It is also averted that there were several transfers by the original lessee or his successors and the transferees continued to be in possession as bona fide purchasers for value, without notice of any claim of the petitioners. It was specifically averred by the respondents that the refusal to pay rent after the determination of the alleged lease period amounts to disowning the title of the lessor; since more than 12 years have elapsed from such refusal, the rights of the petitioners and their alleged predecessors were extinguished long back. It was further stated by' them that the proceedings involve complicated questions of law and fact and as the respondents deny the petitioners' rights, if any, to file the petition, the petition may be either rejected or the petitioners may be directed to get their title decided in a competent civil court. Respondents also contended in the alternative that they were permanent tenants on annual rent and' therefore they cannot be evicted at all. They also denied the existence of any grounds under S. 21(l) of the Act, pleaded in the eviction petition.