RAM SINGH Vs. KHUSHWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhola Singh, the father of Ram Singh and Amar Singh, appellants Nos. 1 and 2. was a tenant In house No. 1313, Ward No. VIII. situated in Kucha Hiralal, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmere Gate, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 67 per month, together with Rs. 6/7.00 as house tax. and Rs. 3.00 as water tax, totalling Rs. 76/7.00 per month. This house originally belonged to one Hira Lal, after whose death his son Khushawaqat Rai, respondent No. I. claimed to be its owner. Bhola Singh appears to have started paying rent to Khushwaqat Rai, to whom he paid all rents up to August 31, 1958. No rent was paid to him with effect from 1st September, 1958 to 30th June, 1959. Khushwaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 had served on Bhola Singh. a notice of demand dated April 21, 1959 but there was no response. On July 22. 1959. respondent No 1 filed a petition for eviction of Bhola Singh under Cl. (a) of the' proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of non-payment. of rent for the period from September 6, 1958 to July 6, 1959. The tenant, Bhola Singh, in his written statement replied that he had paid rent for the said period to Dr. Jagmohan Lal, respondent No- 2, who is the son of Khushwaqat Rai. respondent No. 1. Jagmohan Lal, it was stated, had "filed a suit for partition of the property, including the property in suit which Was decreed on September, 1. 1958." According to Bhola Singh, respondent No. 1 ceased to be the landlord as a result of the said decree and Dr. Jagmohan Lal "became the owner and landlord by operation of law," of the premises in dispute; he, thus. became a tenant under Dr. Jagmohan Lal. He further stated that he held receipts for rent paid to Jagmohan Lal, which he filed along with his written statement. On November 30, 1959, the Additional Controller framed a preliminary issue, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist between the parties. On December 28. 1959 Bhola Singh, tenant, died and the present appellants. being his legal representatives, were impleaded as respondents. In the meantime. Dr. Jagmohan Lal made an application before the Additional Controller praying that he be impleaded as a respondent. On May 18, 1960, an amended petition was accordingly filed under orders of the Additional Controller impleading Dr. Jagmohan Lal. as respondent No. 2. Dr. Jagmohan Lal, in his written statement,, admitted having received rent from Bhola Singh for the period from September. 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959. He claimed that he had become the owner of the property under a will of late Shri Hira Lal, who was his grandfather.

(2.) On May 29, 1956, Dr. Jagmohan Lal had filed a suit against Khushwaqat Rai, respondent No. 1, and certain other members of his joint Hindu Family, inter alia. for partition of moveable and immovable properties of the joint Hindu family, and for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the house No. 1313, which was claimed by him under the will of Hira LaL A permanent injunction was also sought to restrain respondent No. 1 from realising rents from Bhola Singh, the tenant in house No. 1313. On September 1, 1958, the trial court held that Dr. Jagmohan Lal became owner of the house under the will of Hira Lal, which was found to be valid- But, Dr. Jagmohan Lal was found to be out of possession. The suit for declaration and injunction with respect to the said house was, therefore, held to be not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed- Khushwaqat Rai was. however, held liable to render accounts of the income of the said house. The High Court appeal, on October 2, 1967 set aside the finding that Dr. Jagmohan Lal was the exclusive owner of house No- 1313 as the will was founds. to be invalid. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled only to 1/10th share of the entire joint Hindu family immovable property, including the property No. 1313 and to rendition of accounts with respect to his share. A preliminary decree for partition of his 1/10th share in the said properties and for accounts was passed in favour of Dr. Jagmohan Lal, respondent No- 2 against Khushwaqat Rai, respondent No. 1.

(3.) After Jagmohan Lal had been impleaded as respondent No. 2, in the eviction petition filed by Khushwaqat Rai, a statement was made by the counsel for the appellant-tenants on May 27, 1960 praying for one month's time to pay the rent with effect from July 1, 1959 at the rate of Rs. 76/7.00 per month in Court. It was stated that in case of default the tenants would be liable to eviction. An undertaking for depositing future rent was also given. The counsel for Khushwaqat Rai made a statement agreeing to the above undertakings, and to the amount deposited by the tenants. being retained in Court, which would be payable, after a decision in respect of the title to the property in dispute between his client and Dr. Jagmohan Lal, to the person in whose favour the decision was given. The counsel for Dr. Jagmohan Lal, respondent No- 2. also agreed to the aforesaid arrangement. The Additional Controller on June 1, 1960 passed an order dismissing the eviction petition as withdrawn and ordering that the amount of rent shall remain in deposit until the dispute regarding title was settled. Khushwaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal. The learned Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated December 17. 1960 accepted the appeal and setting aside the order of dismissal sent the case back to the Additional Controller for decision in accordance with law. It was held that the Additional Controller should have decided the question whether the tenant occupied the premises in dispute under Khushwaqat Rai or not. It was further observed that if the Additional Controller was so advised he could also withhold action in the matter to await the decision of the civil Court regarding the title to the property. After remand, Dr. Jagmohan Lal, respondent No. 2 applied for the stay of proceedings on the ground that an appeal was pending in the High Court in his aforesaid suit. On November 15, 1961, the Additional Controller stayed the proceedings in the eviction matter.