HAJI ALI MOHAMMAD AND SONS PANNA Vs. HOLARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Hologram instituted a suit against the appellants claiming, inter alia, a decree against them for eviction from the suit land, more particularly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The second appellant was joined in the suit on (he allegation that the first defendant who was the tenant of the plaintiff had sublet the suit land to him.

(2.) THE material facts are these The suit land and some other land adjoining it originally belonged to two brothers Moula Bux and Rahim Bux. They inducted the first defendant as their tenant on the suit land under an unregistered lease deed Ex. D-3, dated 29-3-1952. The tenancy of the first defendant commenced from 1-4-1952. Ex. D-3 contains a stipulation that the tenancy shall be for a fixed term of twenty years and that the tenant at his option shall be able to renew it for a further term of ten years. The stipulated rent was Rs. 50 per month. Moula Bux and Rahim Bux sold the suit land as also the other land adjoining it under the sale deed dated 26-10-1956 to the plaintiff Holaram and khemchand. Subsequently on 31-12-1961 a partition took place between the two purchasers and the suit land which admeasures 100' x 110' fell to the share of the plaintiff and thus the first appellant became a tenant of the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the payment of rent at the stipulated rate of Rs. 50 per month was made to the plaintiff-respondent from 1-1-1962 Upton the month of october 1963 by the first defendant through the second defendant. On 18-11-1963 the plaintiff sent a notice by registered post determining the tenancy of the first defendant as from 31-1-1964. On failure of the defendants to vacate the land, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property on the basis of the provisions contained in section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act though the trial Court had held that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that he required the suit land bona fide for the purposes of his residence and starting business.