RAJ NARAIN Vs. SHIV RAJ SARAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of two suits instituted by Raj Narain and Kailash Narain plaintiffs of the two suits against Shiva Raj Saran and Prithivi Raj Saran defendants for their ejectment and arrears of rent. The allegations made in the two suits are almost indentical.

(2.) The case of two plaintiffs in their respective plaints was that Sahu Maharaj Narain their father owned a piece of land 100 ft. x 100 ft. by the side of Station Road, Moradabad. It was alleged that out of the aforsaid land land 78 ft. east-west x 100 ft. north south were let out to the defendants on 75th July 1947 at the monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 for a period of eleven months for the purpose of running a Tall. This land according to the plaintiffs was on the western side of 100 ft. x 100 ft. land belonging to Sahu Maharaj Narain. It was alleged that remaining portion of the aforsaid land measuring 22 ft. east-west and 100 ft. north-south along with the construction thereon was given to the defendants by Sahu Maharaj Narain on license and it was agreed between the licensor and the linsenees that the licensees would vacate the land along with the construction whenever Sahu Maharaj Narain world ask them to do so and that the licensees were not entitled to any notice. So far as the portion which was leased out was concerned it was alleged to,have been given on monthly rent according to the English calendar and the tenancy was to end with the last date of the month. It was further alleged in the plaint that under a decree in suit No. 27 of 1956 of the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad, the land in suit (i.e. 100 ft. x 100 ft.) was partitioned and the northern half share fell in the share of Plaintiff Raj Narain and the southern half fell in the share of his brother Kailash Narain. It was asserted that the two plaintiffs after the partition became owners of their respective portions and thereafter the defendants entered into separate contract of tenancy and agreed to pay rent to each of the plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. 50.00 per month. The plaintiffs alleged that the terms of the tenancy were reduced to writing on 10th Aug. 1947. It was alleged that the permission which had been given to the defendants in respect of 22 ft. wide land was revoked and that the plaintiffs through notice dated 16th Aug., 1963 asked the defendants to quit although it was not necessary to serve them with such a notice in view of the terms of the lease. Further allegations in the two plaints were that the land in dispute did not come within the definition of 'accommodation' as contemplated by Act III of 1947 which was not applicable to the land in dispute. The plaintiffs also prayed for the recovery of the arrears of rent and damages. It was alleged that since defendants did not vacate the disputed land nor paid the arrears, hence the suits.

(3.) Defendant Prithivi Raj Saran contested the suit and pleaded that his father Shiv Raj Saran had great faith in Sahu Maharaj Narain. He gave blank stamp paper to him and it appeared that a lease deed had been got prepared on those stamp papers. He denied his signature on the lease deed which had been referred to in the Plaint. It was pleaded that the tenancy started from 17th Aug., 1946 on the basis of a Keravanama executed on that date for a monthly rent of Rs. 501- for the entire accommodation in dispute and subsequently the rent was raised to Rs. 100.00 per month. It was asserted that the property in suit was accommodation to which Rent Control and Eviction Act applied as such no suit for possession could be maintained without the permission of District Magistrate. It was further asserted that the notices given by the plaintiffs of the respective suits were also invalid.