HAJI ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. MADAN L KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of premises No. 5, Amratolla Street and if necessary, a declaration that the purported Indenture of Lease dated January 7, 1963 is void and/or not binding on the Plaintiff and that no right, title or interest in premises No. 5, Amratolla Street or any part thereof has been transferred to or in favour of Defendants Madanlal Khandelwal and Swastika Supply Company being Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The further reliefs claimed are a decree for Rs. 23,000 against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as damages for wrongful occupation and a decree for further damages at the, rate of Rs. 200 per diem from the date of the institution of the suit till vacant and peaceful possession is delivered. The Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 against Defendant Sunilkumar Sashibhusan Vishnu and Ayesha Bai Hasam as loss and damage as mentioned in para. 10 of the plaint.

(2.) The Plaintiff instituted this suit against Madanlal Khandelwal, Swastika Supply Company, Sunilkumar Sashibhusan Vishnu and Ayesha Bai Hasam. Ayesha Bai Hasam is alleged by the Plaintiff to have been the owner of premises No. 5, Amratolla Street and Madanlal Khandelwal and Swastika Supply Company are alleged to be the lessee in respect of premises No. 5, Amratolla Street. Sunilkumar Sashibhusan Vishnu is alleged as having granted a lease in favour of Madanlal Khandelwal by virtue of a Power of Attorney granted by Ayesha Bai Hasam in favour of Sunilkumar Sashibhusan Vishnu dated July 7, 1950.

(3.) The Plaintiff alleges to be the owner of premises No. 5, Amratolla Street by a registered conveyance dated May 14, 1960. The Plaintiff also claims to be the sole proprietor of the business carried on under the name and style of Haji Abdulla. The Plaintiff's case is that the Plaintiff discovered that on or about January 7, 1963, the Defendant Vishnu purporting to act as Constituted Attorney of Ayesha Bai had executed an Indenture of Lease in favour of Madanlal Khandelwal for a period of 21 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 200. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Ayesha Bai was not the owner of the premises and neither she nor Vishnu had any right or title or interest to grant any lease in respect of the premises. The lease is alleged by the Plaintiff as illegal, void and not binding. The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged by the Plaintiff to be trespassers. Damages are claimed against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for wrongful possession at the rate of Rs. 200 per day. In para. 8 it is alleged that the Defendants are denying or are interested in denying the Plaintiff's right, title and interest in the premises.