HARISH Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 2848, 2849, 2850 and 2851 of 1985 as the question involved is common is all these cases.

(2.) SARLA Devi and Bimla Devi daughters of Rochi Ram from his wife Mehangi Bai filed four ejectment applications against their tenants Harish, Bansi, R.S. Mittal and Radhey Sham giving rise to these four petitions. It was pleaded in the ejectment applications that the premises in dispute were owned and possessed by Mehangi Bai widow of Rochi Ram. She had purchased the premises from the Ministry of Rehabilitation Govt. of India and a conveyance deed was executed in her name on 2.1.1969. Said Mehangi Bai died on 23.3.1972 and her husband Rochi Ram, their father died on 27.1.1976. Thus the daughters are the only legal heirs and successors-in-interest of later Mehangi Bai. They have also inherited the suit property along with other properties in equals shares. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.1981 at the rate of Rs. 135/- per month and secondly that they requires the premises in dispute for their own occupation and use. The petition was contested mainly on the ground that there is no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. It was pleaded in the written statement that Murti Mata Veshno Mandir is the owner/landlord of the whole house by the virtue of a will executed by Rochi Ram in its favour, it had become its owner and that Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi had not right in the property in question. Thus, according to the tenants, their landlord is Murti Mata Veshno Mandir and not the said Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi. However, on trial, the learned Rent Controller found that there being no documentary evidence it could not be held that the present petitioners are the tenants under them. In view of that finding, ejectment applications were dismissed. In the appeals filed on behalf of the landladies, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landladies and tenants between the parties. While coming to this conclusion it was observed that :-

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , all the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. However, the petitioners are allowed 3 months, time to vacate the premises provided all arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over, and for this period rent will be paid by the 10th of every month in advance. Petition dismissed.