JEET LAL Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the amended plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of property No.29-B, Connaught Place, New Delhi, alongwith defendants 2 to 6. Shops on the ground floor of the property has been in occupation of the plaintiffs as tenants for the last many years. Defendant No.l approached the plaintiffs and said defendants for purchase of the said property for Rs.8,25,000.00 through Narinder Anand, property broker. Plaintiffs told the defendants that they were ready to sell the property subject to the specific condition that they would remain as tenants in the respective shops in their occupation for ever and after their death their respective heirs would become tenants in their place on the same terms and conditions. Defendant No.l agreed to purchase the property subject to the said specific condition. It is further alleged that at the time of entering into the agreement of sale dated 26th February 1973 the agreements of tenancies were also simultaneously executed on 26th February 1973 by the plaintiffs. Later on sale- deed was executed and registered with the Sub Registrar, New Delhi on 5th June, 1974. The possession of said property excepting the shops on ground floor was delivered to defendant No.l on 26th February, 1973. Defendant No.l inspite of having purchased the property subject to the aforesaid specific condition, has initiated proceedings for eviction against the plaintiffs under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It is stated that initiation of the eviction proceedings by defendant No.l is a clear breach of the said specific condition. Sale of the property in favour of defendant No.l is, therefore, liable to be declared as null and void. Defendants 2 and 6 have been impleaded as formal parties being the vendeers of said property along with the plaintiffs. It was prayed that decree for declaration may be passed that the sale deed dated 6th February 1974 (registered on 5th June, 1974) is null and void. Possession of said property 29-B excepting the shops on ground floor be delivered to the plaintiffs. In the alternative decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to remain in occupation of the shops on ground floor for ever as tenants and after their deaths their respective legal heirs would become tenants in their places on the same terms and conditions on which they are holding the shops under defendant No.1, may be passed.

(2.) Defendant No.6 was proceeded ex parte on 26th September 1977 while defendant No.3 on 15th November 1977. Defendants 2 & 5 were proceeded ex parte on 3rd February 1978 while defendant No.4 on 13th September 1978.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit. In the written statement filed to the amended plaint by way of preliminary objections it is alleged that the suit is barred by limitation, suit as framed is not maintainable, plaint does not disclose cause of action, jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the court fee paid is inadequate. On merits, it is pleaded that there were some disputes between the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 and in the suit it was ordered by this court that as it was not possible to physically partition the property, the same will be sold in auction. Property was put to auction twice but without any results. Answering defendant was approached by the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 through Narinder Anand, property broker, for purchas of property and after negotiations defendant agreed to purchase the property for. a sum of Rs.8,25,000.00 . On 26th February 1973 an agreement of sale was executed between the parties and a sum of Rs.5,01,000.00 paid to the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6. Balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Answering defendant was put in possession of the property excepting the shops on ground floor which were in occupation of the plaintiffs as tenants. Tenancy agreements were separately executed by the plaintiffs in respect of the shops in their occupation for a period of II months which have since expired. Sale deed was thereafter executed on 6th February 1974. It is denied that the answering defendant approached the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 for purchase of said property as alleged. It is further denied that the plaintiffs told the answering defendant that they would sell the property only subject to the specific condition that they would remain tenants for ever in the tenanted shops and the tenancy would be heritable as alleged. It is stated that after the expiry of period of II months for which agreements of tenancy were executed, no notice was given by any of the plaintiffs for exercising the option for renewal of lease. After terminating the tenancies of the plaintiffs validly the eviction proceedings have been initiated against them under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the proceedings are pending before an Estate officer. It is emphatically denied that the tenancies of plaintiffs are either permanent or heritable as alleged. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs had committed breach of the covenants of the Head lease and have thus made their tenancies liable to forfeiture. It is denied that the sale of property in favour of defendant No.1 is liable to be adeclared as null and void as alleged. It is stated that the value of the property is more than Rs.20 lakhs as admitted by the plaintiffs as is evident from reply/objection filed by plaintiff No.2 in the eviction proceedings before the Estate officer.