OM PRAKASH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detailed arguments have been advanced in this appeal on the question of admission which includes the questions whether any substantial questions of law arise in this appeal as are required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The basic facts may be stated first. P.A. Case No. 77 of 1972 for release under Section 21 of the Act 13 of the 1972 was filed by Sri Devki Nandan (since deceased respondent Nos. 1 to 7 being his L. Rs-) versus Sri Guru Bachan Singh and others. In which Sri Sant Ram present respondent No. 8 was one of the defendant as tenant of a part of the premises 15 Ghosi Gali, Dehradun. The release application was duly allowed vide order of the Prescribed Authority on 27.3.1976. Both the tenants Sri Guru Bachan Singh etc. and Sri Sant Ram filed appeal on 20.4.1976 and vide order of the appellate court dated 18.10.1976,the case was remanded to the learned Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The Prescribed Authority again allowed the application for release on 11.7.1977. The Rent Control Appeal Nos. 133 of 1977 and 134 of 1977 were filed by Smt. Jaswant Kaur (L.R. of Gurbachan Singh) and Sri Sant Ram respectively, which were decided by the then learned District Judge on 19.12.1977 by which the order of release made by the Prescribed Authority dated 11.7.1977 was upheld. Both the defeated tenants Smt. Jaswant Kaur and Sri Sant Ram filed writ petition before the High Court against the order of the then learned District Judge dated 19.12.1977. The writ petition of Sri Sant Ram was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 190 of 1978 and the High Court ultimately vide order dated 19.10.1979 dismissed the writ petition and allowed six months time to the petitioner Sri Sant Ram. The six months time was to exhaust on 19.4.1980.

(3.) The Original Suit No. 53 of 1980 was then filed by Smt. Raj Kaushalya (since deceased) on the ground that a part of the property No. 15 Ghosi Gali, Dehradun was allotted to her by the then Rent Control & Eviction Officer and since then she is tenant on the same. It has also been alleged that one Uddoo Mochi was the landlord of the premises and she was paying rent to him against the receipt's duly issued by him (Uddoo Mochi). That somewhere in the year 1953, the said building was allegedly purchased by Sri Devki Nandan (since deceased) and he became the landlord and that her elder son Sri Sant Ram had no concern with the said tenancy and that she had no good relations with her son Sri Sant Ram, that Sri Devki Nandan in collusion with her son Sri Sant Rani has filed the prescribed authority Case. No 77 of 1972 for eviction and ultimately got the order of release which was confirmed upto the High Court and when the landlord Sri Devki Nandan asked her to vacate the premises on 18.3-1980 then and only then, she came to know of the release order in the Prescribed Authority case filed by the landlord against her son Sant Ram and after making inquiry she filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The defendant/landlord Devki Nandan filed written statement alleging that Smt. Raj Kaushalya was never tenant of the disputed premises and the business at that disputed shop was being carried on exclusively by Sri Sant Ram and the proceedings in the Prescribed Authority case was rightly instituted against Sri Sant Ram who very vehemently contested the case for long seven years and even knocked the doors of the High Court by way of writ petition, which was ultimately dismissed with a direction to vacate the premises within six months., It was also stated that Smt. Raj Kaushalya never paid rent of the disputed property to the landlord and she was never recognised to be a tenant by the present landlord.. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if she had been a tenant since the time of Uddo Mochi, still she surrendered her tenancy right completely and Sri Sant Ram became tenant. It was also alleged that the case of the plaintiff Smt. Raj Kaushalya was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence.