RAM SINGH Vs. ASA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Ram Singh and others plaintiffs against the judgment dated 5th March, 1962 of Shri S. C. Goyal, Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal, by which he accepted the appeal of the defendants and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed their suit with costs throughout.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that Ram Singh, Har Sarup, Parsa Ram and Dalip Singh plaintiff-appellants are owners of land measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas situate in the estate of Karnal and they leased out the same on the basis of deed dated 12th January, 1947 for a period of 99 years to the respondent-defendants. The latter were entitled to erect residential houses thereon and later on other members of their brotherhood could construct their houses which after the expiry of the period of lease were to become the property of the lessors. The defendants are Harijans. The original lease was granted in favour of the defendants. But according to the terms of the lease deed they had given that land to some other persons and in all 26 Harijans constructed houses thereon. The rent reserved was Rs. 68/- per annum, and it was to be paid six monthly. It was agreed that the rent shall fall due on 1st July and on 1st January, every year. The lease was to be forfeited on the failure of the defendants to pay rent for four successive six monthly intervals. The other conditions of the lease were that the defendants were made responsible to pay house or municipal taxes or any other taxes if assessed on the property, but they were entitled to enjoy the fruits of the trees which they might grow and the ownership of the trees would vest with the lessors. The plaintiffs filed this suit for ejectment of the defendants on the allegations that the lease stood forfeited as they had failed to pay Rs. 272/- on account of arrears of rent from 1st January 1956 to 31st December 1959, and Rs. 15/14/- on account of house tax for the years, 1956-57 to 1959-60 and Rs. 49/- on account of special assessment made from 27th April, 1956. The plaintiffs gave notice to the defendants on 14th March, 1960, informing them that the tenancy stood terminated on account of their failure to pay the rent and taxes and also they had cut and removed branches of mulbery trees.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. It was averred that the plaintiffs refused to accept the rent when offered to them and that they remitted through money order a sum of Rs. 136/- on account of rent for two years in the year 1958 and also a sum of Rs. 272/- on account of four years rent on 10th March, 1960. But the defendants illegally refused to accept the same. On 23rd March, 1960, they deposited a sum of Rupees 272/- in the Court of the Rent Controller for payment to the plaintiffs and they were liable to pay house tax, special assessment, cost of suit, interest and other amount, if the defendants proved that they had actually paid those amounts. It was averred that the suit was barred by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. They claimed Rs. 40,000/- as the price of the superstructure of their houses in case decree for ejectment was passed against them. On these pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-" 1. Whether the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 apply to the facts and property in suit and as such this suit does not lie? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession on the grounds in the plaint? 3. Whether the defendants have removed any branches of the mulbery trees as alleged? If so to what effect?