RAM KUMAR Vs. BAHAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are that Parbhati Ram was a tenant in the shop in dispute situated in Saddar Bazar, Mandi Phul. He had taken that shop from the present respondent Smt. Bahal Kaur on rent for one year commencing from 25th April, 1965. However, he continued in possession. He died on 29th November, 1970. Smt. Bahal Kaur filed the suit, which has given rise of this appeal for possession of the shop in dispute against the sons and widow of Parbhati Ram (deceased) on the allegation that after the expiry of the period of tenancy Parbhati Ram was in occupation of the shop in dispute as a statutory tenant and that the tenancy came to an end on his death and thus the defendants had no right to remain in possession of the shop.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit and pleaded that Parbhati Ram had taken the shop in dispute as Karta of Joint Hindu Family and, therefore, they were tenants of the shop along with Parbhati Ram and had a right to remain in possession of the shop even after his death. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit.

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1 the learned trial court held that Parbhati Ram had taken the premises in dispute on rent as karta of the Joint Hindu Family. Under issue No. 2 it was held as the defendants were members of the Joint Hindu Family of which Parbhati Ram was the karta, they were also tenants of the shop in dispute and, therefore, a civil suit for their ejectment did not lie and application for ejectment should have been filed before the Rent Controller. In view of the above findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed appeal which was heard by learned Additional district Judge, Bhatinda. He upset the findings of the learned trial Court on both the issues and held that Parbhati Ram had taken the shop in dispute on rent in his personal capacity and had become a statutory tenant after expiry of the period of lease and as statutory tenancy was not heritable the defendants had no right to remain in possession of the shop. Consequently he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have now come to this Court.