KRIPA RAM Vs. JAGDISH AND KHUB RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed againstthe judgment and decree passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar, JudgeSmall Cause Court dated 23/02/1983, in suit No. 1551of 1980 dated 30/10/1980.

(2.) The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 235-from Kirpa Ram, the petitioner. It was the case of the defen-dant/petitioner before me, that the plaintiffs were not the ownersof the premises, and no rent Was, therefore, payable.

(3.) In this case there was a dispute between the partieswhether the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises in question. The plaintiffs asserted that they were owners of the premises in question, so it had to be proved by them. Theplaintiffs had to prove that they are the-landlords. The plaintiffspurported to produce what is termed as a "Mukhtiamama"(General Power of Attorney). A "Mukhtiamama" is not atitle deed, it only confers powers on another.