BHAGATRAM Vs. MAHANT PRABHU DAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, same questions of fact and law are involved as such, these are being taken up together for the disposal. All these petitions are filed by the tenants against same landlord in respect of different tenements relating to which separate suits, filed before Judge Small Causes Court, for eviction of his tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits were decreed by the Trial Court, and the revisions were dismissed by the District Judge, Haridwar, vide his orders dated 22.10.2003/27.10.2003. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the affidavits, counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits, on record.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj was the owner of the property in suits. Much before the present litigation, a Suit No. 75 of 1980, was filed by one Seva Dass against Baba Dudha Dhari, claiming title of the property which was finally decreed on 7.9.1980, in terms of compromise between said parties wherein the title of the Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj was accepted. The petitioners were tenants in the property in suit in different tenements of it. They filed applications in the year 1981, under section 30(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) against Baba Dudha Dhari and his two disciples Shyam Dass and Mahavir Dass. Only Baba Dudha Dhari filed his objections against said applications (in which the tenants had sought to deposit the rent in the Court of Munsif) and claimed his land lordship. Baba Dudha Dhari died on 2.8.1994. On his death Maharaj Prabhu Dass (plaintiff/present respondent) claiming that he succeeded rights of land lordship from Baba Dudha Dhari, instituted small cause suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 1995) against Bhagat Ram, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1995 against Gurucharan Gaur Bali, petitioner, S.C.C Suit No. 15 of 1995 against Brahm Pal, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1995 against Kishan Lal, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1995 against Om Prakash, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1995 against Gopal Giri, petitioner and S.C.C. Suit No. 25 of 1995 against Muniram, petitioner) before the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar. The plaintiff/respondent sought relief of eviction of the petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, after serving notices on them under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, stating that the petitioners/tenants have committed default of payment of rent as such their tenancy is terminated on expiry of thirty (30) days of service of notices. The present petitioners who were defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement in which they denied the title of the plaintiff and his predecessor in title Baba Dudha Dhari. It is also pleaded by them since in the proceedings under section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 Baba Dudha Dhari had mentioned in his objections in 1981, that he had already terminated the tenancies of the petitioners as such the plaintiff cannot treat the petitioners as tenants thereafter, without waving the fact of termination of tenancy by Baba Dudha Dhari in the year 1981. It is also pleaded by the tenants (petitioners) that since Baba Dudha Dhari had earlier executed and registered 'Will' dated 7.7.1974, to create a charitable trust in respect of the property in suits as such the property stood exenoted under section 2(bb) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is further pleaded by them that in the circumstances Baba Dudha Dhari could not have transferred the property through the subsequent 'Will' dated 13.11.1983, executed in favour of plaintiff Prabhu Das. The petitioners have pleaded that it was Seva Das who was landlord of the property in dispute and that it is why the applications under Section 30 were filed by the petitioners for depositing the rent under section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Alleging that the Trial Court has committed error in decreeing the suits and the Revisional Court in dismissing the revisions, the same are sought to be quashed by the petitioners. It is also pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petitions that suit instituted by the plaintiff were barred by time.

(3.) In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent Mahant Prabhu Dass, it is stated that Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj vide his Will dated 13.11.1983, bequeathed the property in favour of his discipline (Mahant Prabhu Dass) who is the plaintiff in the suits. It is admitted that Baba Dudha Dhari died on 2.8.1994. It is pleaded that notices dated 21.4.1995, were got served on each of the petitioners under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by which the tenancies of the petitioners were terminated. It is further stated in the counter-affidavits that after the suits are decreed and affirmed by the Revisional Court, the present writ petitions are not maintainable as there is concurrent finding of fact in the matter. It is also pleaded that no one challenged the compromise decree dated 2.9.1980, passed in Suit No. 75 of 1980 as such it has attained finality as to the landlord-ship and ownership of Baba Dudha Dhari as against Seva Dass. It is also pleaded that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise plea of adverse possession against the real owner, after admitting their induction as tenants in the accommodations in questions. It is pleaded that since Seva Dass to whom the petitioners state rent was payable, had already conceded in the decree passed in Suit No. 75 of 1989, that Baba Dudha Dhari was the owner/landlord of the property. It is not open to say on the part of the petitioners that Baba Dudha Dhari and thereafter the plaintiff Mahant Prabhu Dass is not their landlord. It is pleaded that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, are not applicable to the property in question.