RAMLAL KOSHTHA Vs. BRIJKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defend that No. 1 against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the lower appellate Court reversing the decree of the first Court dismissing the Plaintiff's suit.

(2.) THE Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendant -Appellant for his ejectment as also for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that he was his tenant, and he having denied his tenancy had rendered himself liable to be ejected as a result of its determination by forfeiture consequent to the notice served by the Plaintiff intending to do so. The Plaintiff claimed to have had purchased the house from the Defendant -Appellant under a sale -deed dated 16 -3 -1950 and since then to have admitted him into that house as a tenant on payment of rent of Rs. 150 per month. The Plaintiff had also pleaded that the Defendant No. 1 had committed a breach of the contract of tenancy by not paying the rent and by sub letting the premises to Defendants 2 and 3 (Respondents 2 and 3 in this Court).

(3.) THE first Court held that the sale deed was only nominal and a sham document executed simply as a security for the loan transaction as contended by the Defendant No. 1; that Plaintiff's father had expressly agreed that the sale -deed would never be treated as a deed of conveyance as such; that the Plaintiff was never put in possession of the house and the Defendant No. 1 all along continued in its possession; that the Defendant No. 1 never paid any rent as such of the premises to the Plaintiff; that in any case the notice determining the tenancy being without prior permission of the Rent Controller was invalid. On these findings the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed.