RAM SAHAI GUPTA Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE plaintiff brought a suit for rent and ejectment- against the defendant. THE rent was claimed from 4-10-1961 to 3-8-1965 and pendentelite and future mesne profits were claimed.

(3.) I, however, find that the approach of the first appellate court is not only legally unsound, but even touches perversity on the point whether plaintiff happened to be landlord from at least 6-1-1964, namely, the date of agreement, if not from the date of sale in his favour, or he become owner only after the second appeal of Noor Jahan in civil suit No. 787 of 1962 was decided on 15-2-1968. The first appellate court held that the plaintiff became owner only after the decision of the second appeal of Noor Jahan. It is really strange and painful that the first appellate court could take such view. Actually the plaintiff has acquired title to the property in suit under the sale-deed of his vendor Wahid Hussain dated 4-10-1961, Noor Jahan, may have challenged the transfer, but simply challenging any transfer would not postpone the date of vesting of the property. The title passed to the plaintiff when Wahid Hussain executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. Wahid Hussain's title has been upheld and rival claim of Noor Jahan has been dismissed and that being the position, the vesting of the title would not remain postponed upto the date of the decision of the second appeal. It is not the judgment and decree in the second appeal which has conferred any title. The impact of the judgment and decree simply is that in the litigation in the court the title of Wahid Hussain was upheld as rightful owner of the property. In fact, the plaintiff was also a party to that litigation and, consequently, the transfer in plaintiff's favour was also upheld. In the result, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property from the date of execution of the sale-deed in his favour. That, however, suo moto would not create relationship of landlord and tenant, as the defendant may well claim that he was holding through Noor Jahan, the rival claimant. That stand again will not be open to the defendant with effect from the date an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 6-1-64. Not only the defendant acknowledged and admitted the plaintiff to be owner and landlord, but even entered into an agreement for future sale of the property by the plaintiff in his favour with certain conditions and stipulation. The defendant even paid Rs. 200/- as earnest money to the plaintiff. It is stated in the second paragraph of the very agreement that the present plaintiff has become full owner of the said property. In paragraph 1 of the agreement it is recited that the plaintiff is full owner of the property having purchased it from Wahid Hussain, while the house is in occupation of the defendant on rent. When that is the position, at least from 6-1-1964 a relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the plaintiff and the defendant and that cannot be questioned. True that it was stipulated in the agreement that in case any second appeal is filed by Noor Jahan, there will be no delay in execution of the sale-deed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, if plaintiff wins in the second appeal and if on the other hand Noor Jahan wins, the plaintiff shall return the money advanced in pursuance of the agreement to the defendant. There was also a provision for suit for specific performance or return of advance money etc. and further a provision that if the defendant fails to have the sale-deed executed, his earnest money will be forfeited. It is really very strange that the first appellate court recorded a finding that the plaintiff became owner only on the decision of the second appeal, though in the eyes of law he would become owner from the date of the sale-deed in his favour, when his vendor's title is upheld and I hold accordingly.