S.G. JILANI Vs. RAGHNBIR SINGH TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for review/recall of this Court's judgment and order dated 25 -1 -85 disposing of Civil Revision No. 32 of 1984 has been moved by Sri S. G. Jilani, the original revisionist, and the only allegation made is that at the time when the revision was disposed of, Civil suit between the plaintiff -opposite party Sri Raghubir Singh Tandon, and his brother Sri Ranjit Singh Tandon, being suit No. 51 of 1980 was pending in a court at Jhansi. Since then this suit has been decided by the judgment dated 8 -1 -86 and Ranjit Singh has been declared to be the owner of the property in dispute and as such in view of the fact that the applicant -revisionist, had already delivered possession to Ranjit Singh Tandon on 8 -7 -82, he will not be liable either to ejectment or to pay rent or mesne profits.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the matter are as Under:

(3.) THE second aspect of the matter is again undisputed. The applicant admits that he had been paying rent regularly v.p to August, 1979 to opposite party Rehabber Singh Tandon. In paragraph No. 9 of the written statement he had taken the plea that the house in question was taken on rent from the Plaintiff on 24 -7 -78. This plea is sought to be mellowed down by now saying that the original landlord was the father of the opposite party and the present applicant entered into the shoes of his predecessor and started paying rent to the opposite party. It is also said that the rent note was also executed by the present Petitioner in favour of the opposite party. Even with these allegations the relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite party and the present Petitioner is undoubtedly established and this could not be changed unilaterally merely because the brother of the opposite party served the Petitioner with a notice claiming the property as owner and asking him to pay the rent to him. In the judgment dated 25 -1 -85 it has been held that the mere fact that the Housing Cooperative Society of Jhansi has recognized Ranjit Singh Tandon as owner of the house and a Civil Suit is pending between the two brothers regarding ownership are absolutely irrelevant for the determination of the dispute between the present parties inter se. It is always possible for one man to be ovaries of the premises and yet another man may be the landlord vis   -vis the person in occupy ion. Therefore, even the judgment which is now made basis of the application for review will have no effect in these proceedings. This judgment dated 8 -1 -86 declares opposite party to be the owner of a number of houses in accordance with a deed of will dated 24 -11 -72 but dismissed his suit in respect of house No. 1504 (now in dispute). The basis for this dismissal is that he is not in possession and the possession is of his brother through the tenant Sri S.G. Jilani. I am told that against this judgment an appeal has been preferred in the High Court and is pending. Even otherwise also this judgment has no relevance to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite party and the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the review application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed with costs.