NATHURAM MATHURA PRASHAD Vs. MAMLESHWAR PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.F.A.205-D of 1962 and R.F.A. 29-D of 1963 arise out of suit No 131 of 1960 in which the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, trying the suit granted a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Maleshwar Pershad and Kamta Pershad, hereinafter called the plaintiffs, in respect of land measuring 968 bighas and 15 biswas situated in village Chowkri Mubarkabad, Delhi, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1 to 109, hereafter called the land in suit, and also decreed their suit for recovery of Rs. 18,000.00 against the two appellants, Messrs Nathu Ram Mathura Prshad and Permeshwar Pershad the appellants in R.F.A. 22 D of 1963, hereafter called the lessees and Messrs Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Ltd., appellants in R. F. A. 205 D of 1962, hereafter called the sub-tenants.

(2.) On November 18. 1959, the plaintiffs filed this suit against the lessees and the sub-tenants in occupation of the land in suit with the allegation that by agreement of lease dated April 17, 1928 registered on April 27, 1928, their father Lala Onkar Pershad granted a lease of this land to the Joint Hindu Family of the lesses for a fixed period of 25 years commencing from June 16, 1928 and in the year 1931, the lessees transferred their lease-hold rights in the land for the unexpired period of the sub-tenants but continued to be responsible for payment of rent to the plaintiffs and that the lease period having expired on June 15, 1933, occupation of the land thereafter by the lessees as well as their sub-tenants became unauthorised and that they occupied the same as trespassers and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of possesion against them. They further claimed' that inspite of the sub-tenants being trespassers they were wrongly recorded as cultivator 'gair dakhilkar' under the plaintiffs inrespect of a portion of this land measuring 901 bighas 18 biswas in khasra girdawari papers for the year 1953-54 onwards and on this basis the Revenue Assistant, Delhi, on September 19 1959 declared them to be bhoomidars under Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act, in respect of a portion of the land above said and this declaration, for reasons given in para 8 of the plaint, was wrong, illegal, ultra-vires without jurisdiction and as such void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs. They also claimed a sum of Rs 18,000.00 by way of damages from the lessees as well as the sub-tenants for the occupation of the land by them for a wrongful period of six years previous to the filing of the suit. With these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of the land and for recovery of Rs.18,000.00 along with a declaration that the order of the Revenue Assistant dated September 19,1959 conferring bhoomidari lights on the sub-tenants was illegal ultra vires, without jurisdiction, void and in effective qua the plaintiffs,

(3.) In reply the lessees maintained that the lease was not onlv for the initial period of 25 years fixed therein but also contained a clause that gave them option to renew it for a further period of 25 years after the expiry of the initial period on the same terms and conditions as before except that the rent payable for the holding thereafter was to be Rs. 3000.00 instead of Rs, 2500.00 per year. They also urged that they had not transferred the land in favour of the alleged-sub-tenants, but had transferred only the business and that they themselves continued to be non-occupancy tenants in respect of the land. In regard to the claim that the declaration of bhoomidari rights in favour of the sub-tenants was illegal they -upported the plaintiffs and maintained that the declaration made was illegal but urged that this declaration should have been granted in their favour as they were in occupation of the land as non-occupancy tenants at the relevant time. The liability for the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 18,000.00 was also denied. The prayer made in the written-statement was that they may be declared to be the bhoomidars in respect of the land and the declaration in favour of the sub-tenants be set aside but the rest of the plaintiffs' claim be dismissed.