RATTAN CHAND Vs. ARORA PROVISION STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the older of the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge dated 13th March 1963 allowing the appeal and revers sing the order of a learned Subordinate Judg 1st Class dated 31st August 1961 whereby the plaintiff's suit. for recovery of Rs. l,080.00 and for ejectment against the defendant was decreed.

(2.) The suit in the trial Court had been instituted by Smt. Mohan Devi, wife of Shri Gopi Chand, forma pauperis on the allegations that M/s. Arora Provision Stores of Delhi was a tenant under her with regard to a khokha situated at Phatak Mishri Khan, Daryaganj. Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.30.00 and that no rent had been paid from 1st February, 1951 to 31st January, 1954. On the pleadings, the following three principal issues were settled:-- 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether any valid notice of demand was served upon the defeneant ? 3 Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi, to bring this suit ? To what amount, if any, is tha plaintiff entitled ? Tha trial Court cams to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the mother of Shanti Parkash, who had since, died. The deceased had taken some land on rent from the Delhi Improvement Trust as far back as 1944 and had constructed certain khokhas thereon which were given on rent to the defendant and also to some others. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied on the ground that Shanti Parkash had left behind a minor daughter and a widow. The widow of Shanti Parkash was allaged to have remarried which was supported by the statement of the widow's father. There was no rebuttal. In so far as Vie minor daughter is concerned, Smt. Mohan Devi also claimed to be her guardian and the rent was being sought to be recovered both on her own behalf and on behalf of the minor daughter. It was added that the defendant had also attorned to Smt. Mohan Devi after the death of Shanti Parkash. This last assertion was of course denied by the defendant. It was observed by the trial Court that the defendant had adopted an attitude of denying everything, even his signatures on the receipts issued by Shanti Parkash as well as the receipts issued subsequently. The defendant even denied his signatures on the notice which according to tha trial Court, were identifiable even to the naked eye. The trial Court after a discussion of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff and paid her rent and taken receipts in token thereof. The statements of the defendant's witnesses were not believed and an adverse inference was particularly drawn in view of the defendant's conduct in denying everything. The relationship of landlord and tenant was thus held proved. The defendant's attempt to prove that he had attorned to the Improvement Trust by producing receipts was not taken into account because of want of plea of attornment to a paramount title-holder. The plaintiff was thus held to have locus standi to file the suit and also entiled to recover the rent and sue for ejectment. On these findings, noticed earlier, the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge took into account Ex. D 5 a judgement of a learned Subordinate Judge dated 29th May, 9146 whereby the claim of the Delhi Improvement Trust against Shanti Parkash and Bhishan Singh for the recovery of Rs. 652.00/6 as arrears of rent and damages was decreed and ejectment was ordered against Shanti Parkash. I find from the record that a written statement by the defendant dated 12th July 1954, has on it, a large number of exhibit marks, including Ex. D 5 which do not purport to be signed by (he Court or by anyone else on its behalf. Obviously. there was consid rable confusion and no supervision in the Trial Court in the matter of exhibit marks. I hope in future the Court would pay the required attention to the exhibit marks. From Exhoit D.5,the Appellate Court comcluded that the lease in favour of Shanti Parkash had come to an end in 1946. But it said that though the appellant became a tenant of Shanti Parkash in th" year 1949, nevertheless, as Shanti Parkash had no right or title to pass to the tenant, the tenancy could not be deemed as valid and, therefore, the appellant was at liberty to start paying rent or damages to the title paramount which was the Delhi Improvement Trust Section 118 of the India Evidence Act was considered by the lower Appellan Court to be inapplicable to such a case. The receipt of rent by Smt. Mohan Devi. according to the Court below, did not make her a landlord. In the final result, the order of the trial Court was reversed and it was held that Smt Mohan Devi was not the landlord of M/s. Arora Provision Stores.