BAYABI ABDUL SAMAD Vs. HALIMABI YUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Mohammad Ismail was a tenant in the suit premises owned by the non applicant No. 1 Halimabi wife of Yusuf. The non applicant No. 1 initiated proceedings for grant of permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant by moving the Rent Controller under Clause 13 of the C. P. And Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. The application seeking permission to terminate the tenancy came to be rejected by the Rent Controller and being aggrieved by the said order the non applicant No. 1 landlady preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal the original tenant, Mohammad Ismail died on 1st of May 1985. Consequent upon the death of the original tenant, the landlady brought on record the present non applicant Nos. 2 to 6 as legal representatives of the deceased tenant. The non applicant No. 2 is the widow of the tenant and non applicant Nos. 3 to 6 are the sons of deceased tenant. In appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector the non applicant No. l succeeded and obtained permission to terminate the tenancy. The non applicant No. 1 having issued the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, instituted a suit before the Small Causes Court for ejectment and possession. In the said suit the widow of the tenant and her 4 sons were joined as defendants. They filed a written statement and opposed the claim of the non applicant No. 1 landlady. After passage of about 3 - 4 years the non applicant Nos. 2 to 6 moved an application for amendment of the written statement and the said application came to be allowed. By the amended written statement an additional ground was raised that two of the legal representatives of the deceased original tenant mohammad Ismail, were not impleaded as party respondent in the proceedings before the Rent Controller Appellate Authority, so also it was contended that the notice of termination of the tenancy was not served on the said two legal representatives of the deceased tenant and hence the suit be dismissed. After the amendment came to be allowed by the trial Court, granting the amendment application filed by the original defendants herein non applicant Nos. 2 to 6, the non applicant No. 1 landlady impleaded the present applicants as defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The present applicants who were impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 before the trial Court are the married daughters of original tenant and they have been staying at the house of their husband since last 22 to 25 years. It is the case of the non applicant No. 1 landlady, that she was not aware about the two daughters being the legal representatives of the original tenant and as such they were not impleaded as party respondent in the rent control proceedings before the appellate authority so also for the said reason they were not issued notice of determination of tenancy. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the non applicant No. 1 landlady after holding that the two married daughters/applicants were necessary party to the proceedings under the Rent Control Order so also after holding that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ought to have been served on them.

(3.) DISSATISFIED with the judgment of the Small Causes Court an appeal came to be preferred before the District Judge and in appeal the District Judge Amravati after allowing the appeal decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment and possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in appeal two Civil revision Applications are moved. Civil Revision Application No. 733 of 1995 is filed by the two married daughters of the original tenant who were impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in the suit whereas Civil Revision Application No. 734 of 1995 is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 5 i. e. the widow of original tenant and her 4 sons.