OM PRAKASH Vs. DHANKUMARI DUDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a reversal decree. Such reversal decree is arising out of the finding of the Court of first instance that the suit be dismissed on contest with cost as against the defendant.

(2.) Out of the issues, maintainability of the suit in its present form, validity of the notice, non joinder of necessary parties, and all such points were decided by holding the above view. The first appellate Court carefully considered the various aspects of the matter. The first Appellate Court held that there was a joint tenancy, and the notice addressed to and served upon the sole defendant, and presumed that no notice of attornment was served upon the defendant etc.

(3.) It is factually admitted position that the notice was served upon the defendant for ejectment from the suit premises c/o a particular firm. It is the case of the defendant that he or their family members are running business under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Therefore, the notice which had been served solely on the defendant was bad because he was not the sole defendant in respect of the premises in question. On the other hand, the plaintiff was not the original owner of the suit premises. She purchased the property from the original owner. In the Court below when the tenant was asked to produce either rent receipts he was not in a position to produce the same. The counter foils could not be available since the plaintiff was the subsequent purchaser of the suit premises. Hence, the first Appellate Court came to a conclusion that non disclosure of rent receipts would draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Counter foils could not be called upon from the plaintiff because of the reason that she was not the original owner.