SHAM DASS Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by Sham Dass defendant and other defendants against the Judgment dated March 6, 1974, of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, dismissing their appeal against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1973, of sub-Judge IIIrd Class, Bhatinda. whereby he passed decree for possession of the shop in dispute against them in favour of Hari Ram and others, plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts of this case are that Hari Ram and Banarsi Das sons of Raja Ram and Ved Parkash son of Hari Ram, plaintiffs-respondents are owners of the shop in dispute and they mortgaged it with possession for Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Smt. Sushila Rani, on the basis of a registered mortgage deed dated April 2, 1951. The plaintiffs got this shop redeemed from Smt. Sushila Rani defendant on September 6, 1969. After the redemption there was a Family partition and according to it, this shop fell to the share of Ved Parkash, plaintiff No. 3. Sham Dass and others, defendants-appellants, were inducted in this shop as tenants by the mortgagee Smt. Sushila Rani. The tenancy of the defendants came to an end when there demotion of this shop took place. The defendants refused to vacate this shop in spite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs, therefore, brought this suit for possession of this shop against, the defendants.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. They pleaded that they were tenants under the plaintiffs before it was mortgaged in favour of Sushila Rani and that alter the mortgage they became tenants under Smt. Sushila Rani mortgagee, and after the redemption they continued to be tenants under the plaintiff. It was therefore pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and this suit was barred and they could be ejected under the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. Smt. Sushila Rani, the previous mortgagee of that shop and the Municipal Committee were alleged to be a necessary party to the suit. Certain other legal objections were also taken. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were gamed by the trial Court :