PARKASH CHAND Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for ejectment from the disputed house was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are the sons of Tohli Ram and Des Raj, one of the defendants, is their real brother. It had been contended that the plaintiffs were the exclusive owners of the suit property which had fallen to their share on a family partition and that the same was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month by the said Des Raj from them. The tenancy, it was contended, was initially for 11 months and after the expiry of the said period, the same terminated and defendant Des Raj continued to occupy the said house but did not pay any rent after February 10, 1978. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 185 as the arrears of rent It was also contended that the said defendant had sublet a part of the said house to Parkash Chand defandant-appellant although he was not entitled to do so. Notice on the defendant, terminating his tenancy, was served, but to no effect; hence, the present suit. Des Rai, defendant, did rot file any written statement. The suit was contested on behalf of Parkash Chand, defendant-appellant, who pleaded that the suit was collusive between the plaintiffs and Des Raj, defendant. The ownership of the plaintiffs of the house, in question, was also disputed. It was denied that Des Raj, defendant, was a tenant under the plaintiffs. It was asserted that Des Raj, defendant, for himself and as an attorney of the plaintiffs, had served him with a notice asserting him to be in occupation of the house as his tenant and that of the plaintiffs. It was further stated by him that he never sublet a portion of the house to Parkash Chand, defendant. He was occupying the entire house under the colour of title for more than 12 years and, thus, was in adverse possession thereof. However, later on, this plea of adverse possession was relinquished by the counsel for the defendant by making a statement to that effect. The trial Court found that the title of the plaintiffs to the suit house was duly proved although the partition thereof amongst them was not proved. The plea of tenancy was negatived and it was held that there was no documentary or reliable evidence to uphold the said plea. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court as regards the ownership of the house, in question in favour of the plaintiffs, but reversed the other finding regarding the subletting thereof to the defendant-appellant and it was found that Des Raj, defendant, was a tenant on the house, in question, under the plaintiffs and that he had sublet the same to Parkash Chand, defendant-appellant In view of this finding, the appeal was allowed, the Judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the plaintiffs, suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, Parkash Chand, defendant-appellant, has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.