SHAKUNTLA JAIN Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below whereby his suit for possession of a house was dismissed in appeal by the first Appellate Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff has sought possession of the house on the ground that heir predecessor-in-interest Gian Chand Jain was allotted the disputed house on 21.7.1969 by the Rehabilitation Department. Subsequently, conveyance deed was executed by the Managing Officer (Sales) in favour of Gian Chand Jain on 9.2.1970. After the death of Gian Chand Jain on 16.4.1974, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession alleging therein that the defendants are in illegal and unauthorised possession of the house and the plaintiff being the owner of the house is entitled to actual physical possession of the house.

(3.) THE learned trial Court found that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property having purchased the same by virtue of a conveyance deed Ex. P-1 executed by Managing Officer (Sales). However, the payment to the Rehabilitation Department by the defendant vide Ex. D.1 to Ex. D.26 was found to be inconsequential in view of the registered sale-deed in favour of Gian Chand Jain and consequently the suit was decreed. However, in appeal the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit holding that the possession of the defendant is that as a tenant under the Rehabilitation Department, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession in the civil suit. Reliance was placed upon Shri Gobind Ram v. Takhat Mal Kanungo and another, 1962 CLJ 471 and Bishan Dass v. Jai Kishan, 1972 R.C.R.(Rent) 520 : 1972 CLJ 490. It was held that the possession of the defendant is that of a tenant and therefore is not illegal and unauthorised. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal.