REOTI SARAN Vs. HARGU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for consideration in this special appeal is whether tenancy rights are extinguished, when a tenant purchases his landlord's property.

(2.) Reoti Saran, plaintiff filed a suit against Hargu Lal defendant on these allegations. The dispute relates to certain shops. On 2-7-1942 the plaintiff and his brothers sold the shops in dispute to Hargulal, defendant. The same day the parties entered into a written agreement, under which Hargulal promised to reconvey the property to the vendors on condition that the vendors paid the price within a period of eight years. In pursuance of that agreement dated 2-7-1942, the plaintiff and his brothers paid up the price on 21-12-46, and repurchased the property from Hargu Lal defendant. There was partition between the plaintiff and his brothers. As a consequence of that partition, the shops in dispute came to the share of Reoti Saran plaintiff. Although the property was purchased from the defendant, the defendant declined to vacate the shops. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit against Hargulal defendant to recover possession over the shops. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 400 as damages for wrongful occupation from the date of repurchase to the date of the institution of the suit.

(3.) The defendant pleaded that he was an old tenant of the shops. The tenancy subsisted in spite of the transactions of 1942 and 1946. The defendant also pleaded payment of a certain sum to the plaintiff's brother Parmeshwari Dayal. The learned Munsif, Ghaziabad accepted the defence that Hargulal defendant continued to be the tenant of the shops. Payment to Parmeshwari Dayal was also accepted by the trial Court. In the result, the trial Court merely passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 145/- as arrears of rent. The relief for possession was refused.