MUNNALAL BEHARILAL JAIN Vs. BALCHAND LACHMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against the reversing decree of the learned single Judge by which the plaintiffs' claim for possession of a house and arrears of rent in respect of that house was dismissed.

(2.) THE main facts of this case, which are no longer in controversy, may be briefly stated. The house in dispute was owned by the two defendants and their father Lachhmandas. They executed in favour of the plaintiffs a sale deed dated 22nd January 1938. Also, on the same date, the two defendants further executed a chitthi by which they undertook to pay to the plaintiffs Rs.150 as rent of the house for one year and promised to vacate it at the end of that year. It appears that Lachhmandas died subsequently. Since the defendants did not get the sale deed registered, the plaintiffs filed a suit under section 77 of the Registration Act and obtained a decree directing its registration. Even so, they did not present the sale deed for registration within 30 days of the decree and could not thereafter get it registered as decided finally in Munnalal v. Pachorilal 1950 NLJ 266 : ILR 1950 Nag. 805 : AIR 1950 Nag. 105. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff's had filed Civil Suit No. 70 of 1941 for recovery of arrears of house rent. That claim was compromised but the defendants applied to the Debt Relief Court and secured an order for satisfaction by instalments which they have been paying. The plaintiffs filed another like suit - No. 57 -B of 1945 -and obtained a decree in terms of a compromise between the parties. Then their suit - No. 6 -B of 1950 - was however dismissed in default. Subsequently, by a notice dated 19th February 1951, which the defendants received on 21st February 1951, their tenancy was terminated and they were required to vacate the house by 22nd March 1951 but they continued to be in possession of the house.

(3.) IN answer, the defendants pleaded inter alia that there was no contract of tenancy and that there was only a temporary arrangement for mutual convenience whereby they agreed to pay Rs. 150 annually to the plaintiffs pending acquisition by them of a valid title to the house. Since the plaintiffs failed to acquire title to the house and the defendants are in possession of that house as owners, the plaintiffs' claim for possession and house rent is unsustainable. The defendants further averred that they never acknowledged the plaintiffs as their landlords and denied that they were precluded from challenging the plaintiffs' title to the house.