CHHANKA RAM Vs. REHMAN, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal by the Defendant certain facts are no longer in dispute and may be shortly stated. The Defendant was the owner of 179 Kanals 5 Marlas of land situated in village Sunhera which was in possession of the two Plaintiffs as tenants under him. On the 3rd of July, 1959, the parties entered into agreement Exhibit P. 1 for the sale by the Defendant of his entire land to the Plaintiffs in two lots. One lot consisted of 109 Kanals 8 Marlas of land of which the price was fixed at Rs. 9,572/8/ -. The Plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,500 as earnest money in respect of this lot and agreed to pay the balance on the 16th of July, 1959, when the sale deed was to be executed and presented for registration to the Sub -Registrar concerned. The second lot was comprised of 69 Kanals 17 Marlas of land for which the price agreed upon was Rs. 6,111/14. Out of this price the Plaintiffs paid Rs. 900 as earnest money at the time of the execution of agreement Exhibit P. 1 and promised to pay the balance before the Sub -Registrar on the 15th of June, 1960, when the sale deed was to be executed and presented for registration to the registering authority. In the concluding portion of the agreement the following stipulation appeared:

(2.) ON the 23rd of March, 1965, the Plaintiffs filed the suit giving rise to this appeal. They averred that they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of agreement Exhibit P. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) while the Defendant had backed out of it. They pleaded that from the date of the agreement the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties came to an end and that the Defendant had no right to claim any rent from them so that the order of the Financial Commissioner dated the 14th of January, 1965, was without jurisdiction. It was also asserted in the plaint that on account of that order the Defendant was threatening to oust the Plaintiffs from the land measuring 109 Kanals 8 Marlas mentioned above and was also demanding further rent from them.

(3.) THE following issues were framed by the trial Court: