CHHOTEY LAL Vs. SATISH CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8 -3 -1984 passed by II Additional District, Judge, Hardoi. By means of this decree the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in dispute was decreed and arrears of rent with effect from 5 -12 -1963 to 4 -12 -1966 and pendente lite and future damages at the said rate till the date on which the possession is obtained by the plaintiffs was also decreed. Aggrieved by the decree the defendant has filed this appeal. The history of this case is very chequered and the case was remanded several times by this Court to the trial Court. Ultimately, the suit was tried by the II Additional District Judge Hardoi. The case of the plaintiffs -respondents is that the defendant was the tenant of Raja of Katiyari. Under a sale deed dated 22 -11 -1955 the plaintiffs purchased the shop in question along with other shops and in this way, the defendant became his tenant. The plaintiff' case is that in spite of a notice of demand for arrears of rent and for ejectment the arrears of rent were not paid and by the said notice the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated and, therefore, the suit for ejectment has been filed.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant that he had made constructions over the shop in question by investing more than 3000/ - (Three thousand rupees) in pursuance of an agreement to sell entered into between Smt. Kalawati, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It was also contended by the defendant that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and the defendant and the defendant had made constructions in the capacity of an owner to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff are not entitled to a decree for ejectment against him. For the proper elucidation of the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to the two statements made by the plaintiff in his statement under Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 10 -4 -1967 the plaintiff made the statement that the shop in suit was purchased by the plaintiffs from Raja Udai Pratap Singh of Katiyari and the defendant was the tenant from before the sale deed in respect of another portion, the present portion of the shop was exchanged thereafter. It was also stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the present portion's rent was agreed to be Rs. 6.50 and the said agreement took place between plaintiff's father Shiv Ram and the defendant. On 9 -10 -1967 another statement was made by the plaintiffs that the contract of tenancy between plaintiffs and defendant took place orally on 2 -12 -1955 between plaintiff's father Shiv Ram and the defendant. It was also stated that the plaintiffs do not base their claim on any other contract.

(3.) IN this connection it would be appropriate to refer to a decision rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 353 of 1966 between Smt. Kalawati, mother of the plaintiffs and Chhotey Lal. A perusal of the record of the said appeal would indicate that Chhotey Lal filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale between Smt. Kalawati and Chhotey Lal. The case put forward by Chhotey Lal was that there was an agreement to sell entered into between him and Smt. Kalawati and in pursuance of the said agreement he had taken possession of that property and that a decree for specific performance of contract be passed with direction that Smt. Kalawati should execute a sale -deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of Chhotey Lal. It is not in dispute that this controversy ended by decision rendered in Second Appeal No. 353 of 1966 whereby the suit filed by Chhotey Lal was dismissed and plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the property in dispute.