PANNA LAL BANSAL Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Dalip Singh, respondent No. 1 for possession of the shop in dispute, which is situated in Ludhiana City, and for the recovery of Rs. 660/- on account of its use and occupation by the appellants from 23rd April, 1961 to 23rd March 1963 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month.

(2.) According to the allegations of the plaintiff, his father, Dyal Singh, purchased in a public auction from the District Rent and Managing Officer certain evacuee property, which comprised of four contiguous shops; the shop in dispute being one of them. Later on Dayal Singh in a family arrangement partitioned his property amongst his three sons and two daughters. As a result, the shop in dispute fell to the share of the plaintiff. One Panna Lal, who used to carry on his business under the name and style of M/s. Chiranji Lal Panna Lal was an allottee of this shop under the Custodian and when the same was purchased by Dyal Singh, he attorned in his favour and subsequently, executed a rent deed on 12th February, 1958, in which the period of the tenancy had been fixed for six months only. After the expiry of this period, he continued to occupy this shop as a tenant by virtue of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. He was thus a statutory tenant under Dyal Singh and not because of any fresh tenancy created in his favour. This tenancy being personal to him, came to an end, when he died on 23rd April, 1961. According to the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 6, Amar Nath and others, had entered into possession of the shop in question without any right or title. Since they claimed that they were carrying on the business in the shop in dispute under the name and style of M/s. Panna Lal Bansal and another, this Company had been impleaded as defendant No. 1.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, who, inter alia, pleaded that Panna Lal was a tenant in the shop in dispute from the time of its Muslim owner. Afterwards he became a tenant under the Custodian. He was doing his business in the name of M/s. Panna Lal Bansal. After the purchase of the shop by Dyal Singh, Panna Lal executed the rent-deed dated 12th February, 1958 in his favour. This deed was got executed by Man Singh, son of Dyal Singh, as his Mukhtar. It was executed for six months, but after the expiry of this period, Panna Lal remained a tenant on the same terms under Dyal Singh and he became a monthly tenant. His tenancy remained a contractual one as before and continued so till his death. The same was renewed between the parties and acted upon. His contractual tenancy did not come to an end after the expiry of six months and the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act applied to all contractual tenancies as well and gave protection to such tenants. Panna Lal was not a statutory tenant was alleged by the plaintiff. He was paying rent under the contract of tenancy as before to Dyal Singh through his son, Man Singh. Panna Lal died on 26th December, 1960 and not on 23rd April, 1961 as alleged by the plaintiff. On his death, the tenancy did not come to an end, but it was inherited by the defendants as his legal heirs and they were tenants under the landlord. After the death of Panna Lal, the rent was being paid by the defendants to Dyal Singh through Man Singh, his Mukhtiar, in the same way as Panna Lal used to pay. There were instructions from Man Singh on behalf of Dyal Singh regarding the method of payment and on that account also, the defendants had become contractual tenants under Dyal Singh and the plaintiff could not now deny that fact. Even if in family partition, the shop in dispute had fallen to the share of the plaintiff, he got the same rights or liabilities as vested in Dyal Singh. Rent up to 31st March, 1961 was paid to Dyal Singh and the remaining rent was several times offered to him, but it was not received by him. The defendants were prepared to pay the amount of rent from 1st April, 1961 up to date under a receipt, but they were not liable to pay any amount on account of use and occupation.