GIAN INDER Vs. SHRIMATI SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DARSHAN Dass owned house No. 239, Ward No. 2 Mohalla Caliwara, Faridabad. He died on 30.8.1955. Shanti Devi respondent is his daughter. She has claimed the house from her father under a Will dated 1.8.1955. Banarsi Dass, father of Gian Inder petitioner, occupied the House of Darshan Dass as a tenant Banarsi Dass died on or about 14.11.1970. Shanti Devi filed an ejectment-application against Banarsi Dass in 1970, which was got dismissed as withdrawn after the latter's death, on the ground that Banarsi Dass was a statutory tenant and the relationship of landlord and tenant does not survive after his death. In April, 1971, Shanti Devi filed a suit for possession of house against Gian Inder petitioner, which was resisted by the latter. The stand taken by him was that the family Henna manufacturing business, owned by him and his father Banarsi Dass, had been carried on in the house under the name "Durga Parshad Banarsi Dass". He was, therefore, a tenant of the house independently and as their of his Banarshi Dass. The petitioner averred in the written statement filed by him that the rent of the house at Rs. 25 per mensem had always been paid to the husband of the respondent, by him and his father Banarsi Dass. The respondent was, therefore, not entitled to file the suit for possession of the house against him. Shanti Devi respondent and the petitioner entered into a compromise in that suit. Their statements were recorded and the trial Court decided the suit in the terms of the compromise by order dated 9.11.1973 which reads :-

(2.) IN May 1974, Shanti Devi filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per mensem with effect from 16.3.1971. The petitioner denied that he was in occupation of the house as a tenant under the respondent. According to him, the respondent was estopped from seeking his ejectment after receiving Rs. 15,000 in terms of the decree of the civil Court dated 9.11.1973. No arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have wrongly found that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, particularly in view of the fact that the earlier suit filed by the respondent for possession was dismissed after she was paid Rs. 15,000 by the petitioner. The argument proceeds that one of the issues in the civil suit for possession filed by the respondent against the petitioner was whether the former had become owner of the house on the basis of the alleged Will of Darshan Dass dated 1.8.1955. In view of the fact that the suit of the respondent was dismissed even as a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, it shall be deemed to have been hold therein that the respondent had not become the owner of the house. The order of the civil Court dated 9.11.1973 may not operate as res judicata but shall operate as estoppel against the respondent with the result that she could not file the ejectment application against the petitioner in May, 1974.