MASURYADIN Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question about the status of a tenant (of a portion of a house) of a person 'A' during the period when he (the person 'A') had transferred the entire house to the third party 'B' and he himself (the person 'A') became the tenant of his transferee 'B'. Will the tenant continue to be the tenant of that person 'A' or become the tenant of his transferee 'B'? What will happen if the transferee 'B' re-transfers the house to the person 'A'? Does it mean that the person 'A' continued to be the landlord of the tenant during the period he had transferred the house to the third party 'B'? These questions arise in the following background. FACTS

(2.) PETITIONERS are the owners of the House No. 636, Bhadurganj, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the House). There is a shop in this house, which was let out to one Nafis Ahmad (Respondent No. 3) at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month in 1967. Nafis Ahmad has died during the pendency of the writ petition and is substituted by his heirs. All of them are referred to as respondent No. 3. In 1969, some of the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of one Ramashankar for Rupees 3000/- in respect of the house. The details of the petitioners who have executed these deeds are not relevant. They are referred to as the petitioners. Rama Shankar also executed an agreement of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioners on the same day. A rent deed was also executed on the same day by which petitioners became the tenants of Rama Shankar at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. In 1972, three deeds were executed on the same day between the three parties: (1) Rama Shankar to whom the house was earlier sold; (2) some of the petitioners (the petitioners for short as the details are not relevant); and (3) Saligram and Radheshyam (Saligram-Radheshyam for short). They executed three deeds on the same day. These deeds were: (1) a sale deed in favour of Saligram-Radheshyam for Rs. 10,000/- (the money was shared by the petitioners and Ramashankar; (2) a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner by Saligram-Radheshyam; and (3) a rent deed by which the petitioners became the tenant of the house at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The effect of these three deeds (in 1972) was that Ramashankar went out of the picture and a new relationship between petitioners and Saligram-Radheshyam came into existence. In the deeds of 1969 or 1972, there is no any reference about the shop, or respondent No. 3 or about his status. They are silent on this quesion.

(3.) THE petitioners filed the suit No. 440/1990 against Saligram-Radheshyam on the allegation that transaction evidenced by the three deeds in 1972 was in fact a mortgage and it be redeemed. This suit was compromised between the petitioners and Saligran-Radheshyam in 1994. A compromise decree was also passed in the same year. In substance the compromise was that: the petitioners have paid the entire amount due to Saligram-Radhyshyam; and Saligram-Radhe-shyam were to re-convey the house to the petitioners. This they did in the same year and the petitioners again became onwers of the house. This disposed off this suit as well as the appeal and the revision between the petitioners and Saligram-Radheshyam against the judgment dated 12-8-1980 in O.S. No. 19 of 1977 and JSCC Suit No. 3 of 1976. This has happened during the pendency of the present writ petition. Petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit bringing these facts on the record. Respondent No. 3 has admitted it, but has denied that this has rendered the impugned orders illegal.