CHANDER KALA Vs. BANARASI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against an order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, in a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,311/- filed by the Petitioners (Plaintiffs in the Court below) claiming arrears of rent, with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum, till realization and costs. By the impugned order, the aforesaid suit was dismissed as not maintainable by holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently, mere was no question of any rent being payable by the Respondent (Defendant in the Court below).

(2.) The main ground urged by the Counsel for the Petitioners to assail the impugned order is that while passing the order, the Court below went beyond the scope of the relief sought by the Petitioners in the plaint, which was confined to the claim of payment of arrears of rent by the Respondent. He submits that in his reply to the legal notice dated 28.2.2004, addressed by the Petitioners, the Respondent had stated that a sum of Rs. 1,212/- had been sent towards the alleged arrears of rent and hence there was no dispute with regard to the payment, or the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He submits that in these circumstances, the Court ought not to have returned any contrary findings on the said issue as the said stand taken by the Respondent/Defendant was not in consonance with his reply to the legal notice. It is also stated that the issue of ownership of the subject premises was also not in controversy before the Court below.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Respondent/Defendant did not dispute the receipt of notice issued by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs or the reply given thereto by him. The Respondent/Defendant also admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,212/- was forwarded to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs by money order without prejudice to his rights, but the said money order was returned with a report that nobody by the name of the Petitioner No. 1 was available in the premises. However, the Respondent/Defendant disputed the ownership of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, in respect of the suit premises and claimed that he had become the owner thereof by adverse possession.