RADHYESHAM RAMKARAN CHOUBE Vs. A S MOGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of common judgment dated 10.08.2001 thereby allowing said appeals filed by the original defendant and setting aside the decree for possession. In view of similarity of facts and common evidence being led in the suits, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) FOR sake of convenience, the appellant is being referred to as the plaintiff while the respondents are being referred to as defendants. The suit property comprises of premises in occupation of the respondents initially in the capacity as tenants. The entire house property was owned by one Robort Sitaram and each defendant was the tenant of the respective portions let out to them. The rent payable by each of the defendant was Rs. 30/per month. On 29.08.1979 the defendants entered into an agreement with their landlordRobert Sitaram for purchasing their respective premises. However, subsequently on 28.12.1979 the plaintiff purchased said property by registered sale deed. As stated above the defendants were in occupation of their respective premises as tenants. Thereafter on 03.01.1980 a notice of attornment was given by the plaintiff to each defendant.

(3.) IN the meanwhile the defendants filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 29.08.1979 against Robert Sitaram and the plaintiff. During pendency of aforesaid suit, on 26.03.1981 the plaintiff issued notice to the defendants seeking possession of the respective premises. The defendants replied to the aforesaid notice and stated that their possession of the premises was in the capacity of prospective purchasers. It was stated that the sale deed dated 28.12.1979 was not binding on them. As possession of the premises in question was not handed over, the plaintiff filed four civil suits being Regular Civil Suit Nos. 82 of 1981, 83 of 1981, 84 of 1981 and 85 of 1981. The defendants contested aforesaid suits and took the stand that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was not binding on them and that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiff. It was further stated that after 29.08.1979, the possession of the defendants was in the capacity as prospective purchasers of the suit premises.