NATHAN LAL Vs. VED PARKASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSENESSLY , the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that Ved Parkash and others, successors of Jag Ram Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 -Plaintiffs (for brevity "the Plaintiffs") filed the suit against Nathan Lal son of Des Raj Appellant -Defendant No. 1 and Om Parkash son of Bharat Singh proforma -Respondent No. 6 -Defendant No. 2 (for short "the Defendants") seeking a decree for ejectment in respect of the house in dispute and recovery of the amount of rent of Rs.3200/ -, inter -alia pleading that they were the owners and the Defendants were the tenants in it. The Defendants did not pay the amount of rent and Plaintiffs did not want to keep them as their tenants. They (Plaintiffs) terminated their tenancy on 8.9.1981 by issuance of notice and after termination of tenancy, their possession was that of trespasser. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Plaintiffs sought the ejectment of the Defendants and recovery of the impugned amount as arrears of rent in the manner described hereinabove.

(2.) THE Defendants contested the suit and filed their respective written statements. Defendant No. 1 has pleaded in his written statement that as he had never been residing in the house in dispute as a tenant, therefore, the question of payment of any rent did not arise. However, Defendant No. 2 filed his separate written statement, inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit; mis -joinder and non -joinder of parties, cause of action and locus standi of the Plaintiffs. They have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was claimed that the Defendants paid the rent up to 31.5.1981, but Plaintiff No. 3 did not issue any receipt in this respect. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) IN the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication: