KANDHI LAL Vs. ABHILASH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) SHORT facts involved in the appeal are that the defendant is a tenant on rent @ Rs. 15 per month in the suit premises situated at Ghamapur Chowk, jabalpur. The property comprising the suit shop was purchased by the plaintiff from Kunwarji Sonkar vide registered sale deed dated 6-6-1983. Defendant was inducted into the suit shop by Kunwarji Sonkar. After the purchase, the defendant was apprised of the registered sale deed and the rent was demanded from him. He assured that the rent would be paid to the plaintiff. No rent was paid, consequently, notice of demand dated 24-8-1983 was issued which was served on the defendant. Arrears of rent were neither paid nor tendered in response to the demand notice. Plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction on the ground that he bona fide required the suit shop for starting the business of hotel and beetle leaves.

(3.) DEFENDANT/appellant submitted his written statement refuting thereby the claim of the plaintiff. He inter alia contended that the registered sale deed dated 6-6-1983 is bogus, illegal and without authority of law. According to him, the suit shop belonged to Tara Chand Sonkar who executed an agreement of sale dated 8-8-1982 in favour of the defendant. Defendant used to pay rent to Tara chand Sonkar alone who was the owner cum landlord. Tara Chand Sonkar did not execute the sale deed and consequently, Civil Suit bearing No. 72a/83 was instituted by the defendant against Tara Chand Sonkar for specific performance, it has been further pleaded that in Civil Suit No. 24a/88 a stay order was issued against alienation. The alleged registered sale deed dated 6-6-1983 was executed in contravention of the stay order and the plaintiff, therefore, did not acquire title on the strength of the alleged registered sale deed. Arrears of rent as well as service of demand notice was also denied. Accordingly, it has been contended that Kunwarji Sonkar was not competent to execute the sale deed and in the absence of attornment, defendant is not the tenant of the plaintiff.