BALAJI Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is at the instance of defendant who have lost in both the Courts below. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows -

(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and did not dispute that he was inducted as tenant by Kamaladevi. His contention is that he was paying rent to Shalinibai Kulkarni after death of Kamaladevi for and on behalf of her sister also. He submits that Pophali brothers had also issued a notice to him calling upon him to handover possession of the strip of 18' x 3' from the suit shop since they had purchased the same from Shilabai Deo. It is contended that, therefore, the defendant was compelled to file an interpleader suit being Suit No. 55 of 1986. It is contended that the defendant had, in fact, moved to Rent Controller stating that defendant No. 1 has denied the title of the plaintiff and Rent Controller should, therefore, drop the proceedings and therefore proceedings before the Rent Controller were dropped. The defendant contended that the plaintiff' right in any way was denied by the defendant. Naturally, therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiff cannot seek ejectment without order of the Rent Controller. The defendant No. 2 had contended that he is not concerned with the suit premises at all. He sits in the suit shop as a member of the joint family.