FATHUMA Vs. K S KADHERKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 33 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court , Ramanathapuram, are the appellants in this second appeal against the concurrent decree in favour of respondent for possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 750.

(2.) . The case of the respondent- plaintiff is that he is the court-auction purchaser of the suit property pursuant to the sale certificate Ex. A-1 dated 30. 10. 1971. Further, according to him, he got possession of the suit property through court on 29. 11. 1971 as per Ex. A-2 and on 1. 1. 197 2 the same property was let out to. the defendants, who are none other than the daughters, of one Seeni Mohammed Rowther, pursuant to the decree against whom, the abovesaid court auction took place. The further case of the plaintiff is that the said defendants- tenants paid monthly rent of Rs. 25 upto the end of April, 1974, but they did not pay subsequently that hence the suit was laid on 13. 3. 1984 and that the abovesaid arrears of rent to the extent of rs. 750 is claimed only for 34 months, that is from 1. 1. 1981 to 31. 10. 1983. (Actually, for the said 34 months, the arrears of rent come to Rs. 850, but only 750 is claimed ). In the plaint,, it is also stated that the arrears of rent for the period from 1. 5. 1974 to 30. 11. 1980 has become time barred and hence it is not claimed.

(3.) THE lower appellate court, in the appeal filed by the defendants, has also not approached the case as it ought to have done. It has not even set out the points for determination. However, in effect, it hold that the plaintiff has title to the suit property pursuant to the abovesaid court auction purchase and the defendants have not proved their title. THEreafter, without any discussion whatever, the lower appellate court comes to the conclusion that the defendants have taken the suit property on lease and on that basis, the plaintiff has right to obtain possession from the defendants. Thus, the lower appellate court also has not gone into the question whether the tenancy has been properly terminated and yet strangely the lower appellate court has confirmed the decree of the trial court.