AFTAB AHMED Vs. ABDUL KADIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Regular Second Appeals (Nos. 284-D and 28 5-D of 1966) have arisen out of the same suit and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Aftab Ahmed and Zaki Ahmed filed a suit, No. 314 of 1964, in the Court of Shri Prem Kumar Jain, Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Delhi, for the eviction of five defendants, defendants 1 to 5 in the suit, from House No. XIII/995, situatad in Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara, Delhi. The said house was evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and formed a part of the common pool. According to the plaintiff., the said property was directed to be transferred to them by the Government and a part of the consideration was realised from them. No sale certificate, however, was issued in their favour as the full consideration for the transfer had not yet been paid. The plaintiffs alleged that with effect from July 24, 1962. provisional possession of the property was delivered to them. It is their case that defendants 1 and 2 were the tenants in respect of different portions of the property under the Custodian of Evacuee Property on a rent of Rs. 30.37 per month, and they were directed by the Managing Officer to pay the rent and deal otherwise directly with the plaintiffs with effect from July 24, 1962. The plaintiffs claimed that they became landlords of the said premises from the aforesaid date and defendants 1 and 2 became their tenants by operation of law. They however, admitted that no payment of rent was made by the said defendants to them. Defendants 3 and 4 were said to be sub-tenants in respect of the ground-floor of the property and defenddant 5, a society, was stated to have been claiming itself to be the tenant of the premises, which claim was denied by the plaintiffs. Alleging that they served notices, dated June 13, 1964, on the defendants terminating their tenancies and directing them to band over possession of the property to them, and that the defendants failed to do so, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction against the said defendants.

(3.) Defedants 1 and 3 to 5 filed a joint written statement in which they asserted that it was defedant 5 who was the tenant of the entire house, that defedant who was then the Amir-e-Jamait of defendant 5 never tools the tenancy in his personal capacity, that defendant 3 was in occupation of the ground-floor and the defendant 4, who is the son of defedant ", was residing with his father. They pleaded that defendant 5 was an unregistered body and, therefore, the suit against the said defendant was not maintainable. They raised various other pleas, viz., that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the notices alleged to have been served upon them were illegal, that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispute and as such had no right to file the suit, and that the property was not valued properly for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.