DINKAR S VAIDYA Vs. GANPAT S GORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunable piece of litigation. The petitioner before me was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He got a decree for possession in his favour. The decree was set aside by the Appellate Court. As will be seen from the final order, the petitioner is succeeding so far as the present petition is concerned. However, as to when the present petitioner will reap the fruits of this decree is anybodys guess.

(2.) The facts of the case are follows :---

(3.) But his written statement, Exhibit 102, defendants No. 1 contended that the structure built upon the suit land belonged to Thakur & Co. The fact that he had not paid the rent to the owner of the land since the year 1957 was admitted by him, but he contended that his tenants of the land had become direct tenants of the plaintiff. He also contended that the agreed rent was excessive and prayed for fixation of standard rent. He died during the pendency of the suit. His heirs were brought on record. They did not file any separate written statement but adopted the original written statement of defendants No. 1. i) Defendants No. 2 did not contest the suit at all and hence was proceeded ex parte. ii) Defendants No. 3 filed a written statement at Exhibit 135 and raised various pleas. It is not necessary to refer to all the pleas raised by her. Her contention material for the purpose of this petition is the one that the transactions effected by Awate and defendants No. 1, as also by herself, are binding upon the plaintiff and that, hence, the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the suit property. She also disputed the validity of the quit notice given to her. iii) So far as defendants No. 4 is concerned it may be stated here that the plaintiffs dispute with regard to defendants No. 4 has been settled in the lower Court itself. Hence, it is not necessary to refer to the case sought to be made out by him in his written statement. Incidentally it may be pointed out that defendant No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit. But even during his life time his estate was in the management of the Collector of Kulaba and the Court of Wards. Hence, the Collector was impleaded as defendants No. 5 in the original suit. From what is stated above, it follows that even defendants No. 5 has no subsisting dispute with the plaintiff. iv) Defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the real contesting defendants in these proceedings. They had filed a written statement in the trial Court at Exhibit 74. Initially they had denied the fact that the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property with effect from 1-10-1957. They admitted that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took the land on lease from defendants No. 1 but contended that they themselves had acquitted right title and interest of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit land and that, hence, they had become the sub-tenants in respect of the suit land. They further contended that they had become direct tenants of the plaintiffs in view of the fact that they were sub-tenants of the plaintiffs since 6-12-1956. They also raised the plea of the rent charged by the plaintiff being excessive and prayed for fixation of standard rent. They denied the fact that defendants No. 1 had committed any default in the matter of payment of rent. v) So far as the remaining defendants were concerned it was contended on their behalf that they were the tenants in respect of the structures and that they had paid the rent due by them to defendants Nos. 6 to 8. They, therefore, contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit land by eviction of these defendants from the structure on the land. 3-a. Upon these pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Judge and after considering and examining the evidence led by the parties in that behalf, he held that the plaintiff had made good his case for recovery of possession of suit premises on the ground : a) that the relevant defendants had committed default in the matter of payment of rent so as to attract the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act; b) that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had unlawfully sub-let or assigned their right, title and interest in the suit premises and that the sub-letting or assignment was not permitted or saved by the Ordinance amending the Rent Act with effect from 21-5-1959. The contention regarding excessive character of rent set up by the defendants was negatived by the learned Judge. The contention regarding validity of the notice was like-wise negatived by him and, hence, by his judgment and decree dated 27th November, 1968, he ordered that heirs of defendants No. 1 should pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 9000/- being the arrears of rent. He also passed a decree directing the relevant defendants to remove the structures on the suit land and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the decree.