PARMA NAND Vs. QAMAR JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are two in number, and claim to be the owners of property bearing No. IX/619, Moballa Churiwalan, Delhi, filed a suit for possession and damages and mesne profits in respect of a portion of first floor of the property against respondents Nos. I to 6. The suit of the appellants-plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 14.10.70. Respondents Nos. I to 6 appealed and by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.3.1973 their appeal was accepted and they were held to be the tenants of the property in question. The learned Addl. District Judge, who heard the appeal, however, upheld the decree for recovery of Rs. 360.00 but only on account of arrears of rent. The trial court had granted this amount towards damages. Now, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs claim through their father Nathu Ram who was the owner of the property in question. Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 are other heirs of Nathu Ram. Right of the appellants to the property is stated to be on the basis of a will left by Nathu Ram. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 do not dispute the claim of the appellants. Reference in this judgment to the respondents would, therefore, mean respondents Nos. I to 6 only. As a matter of fact, respondents Nos. I to 6 claim through Mazru-ul-din, who was earlier the tenant of the suit premises. Respondents No. I is his widow and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 his children.

(3.) . The property in question was purchased by Nathu Ram in public auction, it being an acquired evacuee property forming part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 (for short 'the Act) The auction was held on 1.7.1959 and provisional possession of the property was given to Nathu Ram with effect from 23.10.1959 from which date he was held entitled to realise rents from the tenants who were attorned to him (Ex. Public Witness 6/2). Tenants of this property including Mazru-ul-din were informed by the managing officer by a letter sent in 1960 (Ex. Public Witness 6/3) to attorn to Nathu Ram. Tenants were informed by this letter that provisional possession of the property was given to Nathu Ram and the tenants were directed to pay rents to Nathu Ram and deal otherwise with him direct with effect from 23.10.1959. They were also advised to pay arrears of the previous period in the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner to avail protection from ejectment in terms of the provisions of S. 29 of the Act read with relevant Notification. Sale certificate of the property was issued to Nathu Ram on 3.6.1961 (Ex. Public Witness 6/1). Nathu Ram died on 2.6.1963. Mazru-ul-din had earlier died on 5.11.1961. The appellants treated the respondents as unauthorised occupants of the suit premises and filed the suit for possession and recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondents contested the suit and stated that Mazru-ul-din was tenant of the suit premises, firstly, of the Muslim owners, and thereafter of the Custodian under the Administraton of Evacuee Property Act 1950, (for short 'the Evacuee Act') and that the rent of the premises was Rs. 10.00 per month. Appellants filed their replication. On the pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed :