MOHAMMAD KHAJA QURESHI Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals arise out of O.S. No. 115/82 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tandur filed by the respondents for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from March, 1982 to September, 1982 and O.S No. 108/83 on the file of the same Court for possession of the suit premises and areas of rent from October 1982 to August, 1983 and for future mesne profits.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has taken on rent an open plot measuring 175 X 125 feet in S. No. 131 of Tandur for establishing petrol bunk of Indian Oil Corporation and has committed default in payment of rent ; that by virtue of a compromise entered into between the parties on 1-5-1989 the defendant agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 175/ per month towards rent for establishing a stone polishing machine and has committed default in payment of rent. It is alleged in O.S. No. 108 of 1983 that in the earlier suit the defendant filed the written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs and therefore they have determined the tenancy under Sec. III (h) of the Transfer of Property Act. On those allegations they filed the suit for recovery of possession of the vacant site, arrears of rent for the period subsequent to the date of the earlier suit and for future mesne profits.

(3.) Both the Courts below held that the lease is binding on the defendant; that the denial of title by the defendant in the written statement filed by him in O.S.No. 115/82 is contrary to Sec. 116 of the Evidence Act and is not legal. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged that concurrent finding of fact of the courts below by arguing that the tenant is entitled to say that the landlords have no valid title to the suit property; that Exs. B1 and B2 were not properly considered by the lower appellate court; that Exs. B.1 and B.2 clearly point out that the suit property constitutes evacuee property and if so the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He argued that Sec. 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act operates as a bar for the maintainability of the suit, The' learned counsel for the appellant urged an additional ground that under The Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading Limited) Act, 1981 (Act No. 41 of 1981) (hereinafter referred as Act No. 41 of 1981) the lease which is in favour of the Indian Oil Corporation has vested in the Central Government by virtue of Sec. 7 of the Act and that the suits which were filed in 1982 and 1983 subsequent to 14-10-1981 which is the date of vesting, are not maintainable in law as the rights and interests of the lessee have vested in the Central Government. As a corollary to the above argument, he submitted that the Central Government not having been impleaded in the suits, the suits are bad for ncn-joinder of parties.