LALABI MANKHAN Vs. DHELULLAKHAN IMAMKHAN LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant'.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as under : the plaintiff is the owner of Municipal House No. 288 situated in Ward no. 37. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased that property by a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1980 from one Karimabi Bismillakhan. The defendant is the daughter of Karimabi and as such she was given one room for her residence. She was occupying the said room as a licensee. She did not pay any licence fee to Karimabi. The plaintiff purchased the property in the year 1980 but the defendant continued to reside in the said room as a licensee. The defendant did not pay any licence fee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, asked the defendant to vacate the room and hand over the possession. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendant on 25-4-84 and revoked the licence by the said notice. The defendant received the notice on 27-4-84 but she refused to hand over the possession of the property. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for ejectment and possession of the suit premises and for recovery of damages.

(3.) THE defendant filed her written statement and denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. She denied that the plaintiff had purchased House No. 288 from Karimabi by sale deed dated 10-11-1980. The case of the defendant was that she being the only heir of Karimabi, she had become owner of that house property. It was her case that the sale deed was obtained by the plaintiff by practising fraud and misrepresentation upon Karimabi. It was also contended that the plaintiff had not obtained any prior permission from the House Rent Controller for issuing notice and revoking the licence.