JAMILA BEGUM Vs. JUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 23, 1977 of the first appellate court confirming the decree dated November 24, 1975 of the trial court dismissing their suit for declaration that they have been in occupation of the suit premises as co-tenants.

(2.) The relevant facts are, in 1948 Hafiz Abdul Rehman husband of plaintiff No. I and fatlier of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 took on a monthly rent of Rs. 5.00 one room, a kitchen, latrine, store, stair case and open courtyard on the first floor of property situate at Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi from Mst. Qamar-ul-Nisa widow of Hazi Abdulla. This property was sold to various persons and was lastly purchased by Jumma alias Billu Pehiwan defendant No. I by deed dated April 20, 1967. Hafiz Abdul Rehman became a contractual tenant under him. He died on March 11, 1968 leaving behind three sons namely, Gulam-ul-Rehman, Fazal-ul-Rehman (defendant No. 2) and Hafiz-ul-Rehman, one daughter Mst. Amtul Hafiz, besides the plaintiffs. The heirs of Hafiz Abdul Rehman including the plaintiffs inherited tenancy rights in the said premises as co-tenants. The plaintiffs plead that they tendered rent to defendant No. I but he avoided to accept the same. They allege that defendant No. I in the second week of March 1973 threatened to dispossess them from the premises. The plaintiffs on these allegations claim that they are co-tenants in the premises. The defendant No I admits that Hafiz Abdul Rehman was tenant under him up to the time of his death. It is also now not in dispute that his heirs inherited the tenancy rights as cotenants on his death on March 11, 1958. The defedant No. I pleads that the plaintiffs, have no right that they surrendered their tenancy rights which were accepted by him on the execution of rent note on June 29, 1969 by Fazal-ul-Rehman (defendant No. 2) in his favour. Defendant No. I further pleads that the plaintiffs never offered rent to him and that the suit is barred by time. The courts as already stated dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal :

(3.) The evidence on record consists of statements of plaintiff No. 1, defendant No. 1 and Hari Ram Vendor of defendant No. 1.