RAGHUBIR CHAND MAHAJAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the concurrent orders of eviction passed against the tenant. Originally tenancy was in favour of one Kartar Devi and another Inder Chand Kalra. The property was claimed by the bank as a assignee through a compromise decree brought between the bank and the Landlord through a decree dated 17.9.1984. The compromise in favour of the bank purported to transfer the right of 6/10th share of the landlord and 4/10th share as a mortgagee through memorandum dated 23.7.1985. The tenant was not a party to the compromise. The tenant was informed through a notice issued on 26.11.1991 received on 4.12.1991 by the tenant that the rent shall be paid to the Bank.

(2.) The landlord filed a petition for eviction stating that the tenant had not paid rent inspite of notice and that he was in default from 7.9.1984. The tenant took up a plea that the original landlord's daughter Veena Devi claimed herself to be the landlord and was collecting rent. Originally, the tenant filed a written statement contending that the rent was Rs. 90/- as being paid to Veena Devi but later filed an application for amendment to the written statement and contended that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month.

(3.) The Rent Controller found that the case of tenancy must be taken as established by virtue of the fact that the original landlords Kartar Devi, Inder Singh had been parties to a compromise, in terms of which they transferred the right to the bank and therefore, the bank was competent to treat itself as the landlord and demand rent. Adverting to the quantum of rent, the Rent Controller drew an adverse inference against the tenant in not examining Veena Devi or filing the document of lease purported to contain a reference to the rent as Rs. 60/- and held that the tenant had been paying rent only from 1.1.1992 @ Rs. 60/- and there had been a short payment of rent which is malafide. The eviction order was issued which was confirmed in the appeal by the appellate court. The decisions of both the courts make a further reference to the fact that the tenant had filed inter-pleader suit making the bank and Veena Devi as defendants to adjudge on who the owner was and under whom the plaintiff was required to attorn the tenancy.