DREAM LAND AND CO Vs. SHANTI NARAIN BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2007 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 24.01.2004 whereby the three suits filed by the plaintiffs (first two suits were for arrears of rent and the third suit was for ejectment) had been decreed. The case of the plaintiffs was that defendant No. 1 i.e. M/s Dream Land and Company was a tenant of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 7 jointly on monthly rent of Rs.700/-. The suit property comprised of land measuring 23072 sq ft. bearing Government Survey No. 1016/647 and 645 situated within the area of Chandauli @ Shahdara. The rent deed executed between the parties is dated 28.04.1983. Two suits had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of arrears of rent qua 50% of their share from defendant No. 1. The said suits had been decreed and this was confirmed in appeal. The appellant before this Court is defendant No. 1 namely M/s Dream Land and Company. He has no grievance to the decree of the said suits for recovery of 50% of arrears of rent by the plaintiffs. He is, however, aggrieved by the decree passed in the third suit which was a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1. The contention of defendant No. 1 is that he had purchased 50% of this suit property from defendants No. 2 to 7 vide a sale deed dated 04.12.1990 and he had become owner of 50% of this suit land by virtue of the said sale deed. The impugned judgment directing ejectment of defendant No. 1 from the whole of the suit property has raised a substantial question of law as the plaintiffs are the owners of only 50% of the suit land and they could not have obtained a decree for the entire suit property when defendant No. 1 had purchased the 50% rights of the suit property of defendants No. 2 to 7 vide the aforenoted sale deed.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the sale deed dated 04.12.1990 did not see the light of the courts below. It was a document not proved in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has no answer to this query put by this Court as to why this document was not proved before the court below. It is a settled proposition at law that a single co-owner can seek ejectment of the party from the suit property. The plaintiffs were not barred from doing so. The decree that followed cannot thus be assailed on this ground.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law have been embodied on page 6 onwards of the paper book. THEy have been adverted to and all those emphasized and urged by the learned counsel for the appellant have been dealt with Supra. No other argument has been urged.