SUBHADRA DEVI Vs. EAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two connected appeals, R. S. A. Nos. 1847 and 1848 of 1980, as the facts in both the cases are similar and the questions of fact and law involved are identical,

(2.) Jagdish Parshad was the original owner of the property in dispute. A portion of that building was given on licence to Eak Raj, defendant- respondent by deed dated 22nd January, 1971 (Exhibit P. 3) at a monthly rate of Rs. 60. Another portion of the building was given on licence to Bihari Lal by deed dated 1st January, 1973 (Exhibit P. 5) at the rated Rs. 65 per mensem. Later on, Jagdish Parshad sold the entire the building to Smt. Subhadra Devi by registered sale deed dated 29th December, 1976. Thereafter, the licences were terminated and separate suits for mandatory injunction were filed against the aforesaid two licensees on 8th March, 1977. The defendants contested the suits and maintained that they were not the licensees but were the tenant in the premises and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and they could be evicted only under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed in each suit :

(3.) The counsel for the appellant, while relying on Associated Hotels of India Ltd. V. R. N. Kapoor, 1959 AIR(SC) 1262; Mrs. M. N. Clubwala and another V. Fida Hussain Saheb and others, 1965 AIR(SC) 610; Kunchada Ramamurty Subudhi V. Gopinath Naik and others, 1968 AIR(SC) 919; and Qudrat Ullah V. Municipal Board, Bareilly, 1974 AIR(SC) 396 and Banwarilal Chokhani V. Union of India and others,1973 AIR(Gau) 123, has urged that a reading of the documents Exhibit P-3 and P-5, along with the circumstances brought on the record, clearly goes to prove that the respondents were licensees, and not tenants as held by the Courts below. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon on the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions and a decision of this Court in Kidar Nath V. Swami Parshad and others, 1978 AIR(P&H) 204, and has urged that the respondents are tenants and not licensees. According to him, the Gauhati High Court decision in Banwarilal Chokhani's case is distinguishable on facts.