NAWAB BASHIRUDIN Vs. MIRZA AHMED BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff, Defts, 2 to 4 are sons and daughters of Qamrudin. Deft. 1 sued Deft. 2 and obtained eviction order. Plaintiff'filed objections u/s 25 of Rent Act and then filed suit for injunction claiming that they were cotenants and as they were not impleaded, eviction order was not binding on them. Trial Court held that it was a case of joint tenancy and plaintiff & (Defts. 3, 4) did not inherit same. He dismissed the suit. After losing 1st appeal, plaintiff filed RSA] After detailing above, judgment proceeds:

(2.) Only question in 2nd appeal is regarding nature of tenancy and right to inherit tenancy rights from father. Trial Court on the basis of statements made before Rent Controller by the plaintiff in proceedings u/s 25 of Rent Control Act has held that the tenancy was joint. I must say that it is difficult to understand the considerations that weighed with the trial court and his reasoning in this regard Similar is the case regarding the occupatitu and possession of the plaintiff of the sao. property. On the one hand there is an evidence of the electoral rolls from 1961 to 1981 showing that the plaintiff was staying in the suit premises and on the other hand his ration card had a different address. But here again, as in the case of mai tainability, the learned Judge was more influenced by the other proceedings. When the question of the title was raised u/s 25 of the Rent Control Act and incidentally the question of possession has been discussed, the findings of the Rent Controller can be conclusive. They are better decided in a separate suit where these questions are primarily and specifically raised. The question raised here, therefore, should be decided on the basis of the evidence in the present suit and not in any of the earlier proceedings. I must say that there are othe proceedings also The landlord had filed a suit for eviction against defendant No. 2 Mohd. Din in which he had secured an order for eviction. The landlord filed a suit only against defendant No. 2 witnout joining any of the legal heirs. That led to the objections filed by the plaintiff u/s 25 of the Act. Since the plaintiff was no party in those proceedings, those proceedings cannot be looked into the present suit.

(3.) That takes me to the main question regarding the character and nature of the tenancy between Qamar-ud-din and Mohd. Din. Originally the suit property belonged to the mother of the plaintiff. This property was mortgaged by her to one Mohd. Suleman who subsequently became the owner as the mortgagor failed to redeem the property. Thereafter plaintiff's father Qamar-ud-din and Mohd. Din defendant No. 2 executed a rent note in favour of Suleman in 1955 of suit premises. This background is very necessary for properly appreciating new legal relationship that was created between the parties. In other words the owners became the tenants. Qamar-ud-din died in 1957. Mohd. Suleman sold the property to defendant No. 1 in 1967. So in 1967 the original tenancy continued. By this time the Qamar-ud-din had already died and it must be presumed that the entire family continued to stay in the suit premises after the death of Qamar-ud-din. Thereafter, ensued the litigation between the present landlord and Mohd. Din as stated earlier. The plaintiff filed the suit in 1978.