TIRATH RAM Vs. INDERJIT ALIAS INDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the above titled appeal, as well as appeal No. 1326 of 1976, titled Inderjit v. Banwari Lal and others as both arise out of the same suit. Reference to the parties will be made as arraigned in the present appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to these appeals are that Tirath Ram alias Ram Tirath appellant No. 1 had obtained an ejectment order against Sant Ram respondent No. 2 in respect of the premises in dispute under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Thereupon Inderjit respondent No. 1 filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining Tirath Ram from dispossessing him from the premises in dispute in execution of the said order. His plea was that he was a tenant in the suit premises under Banwari Lal appellant No. 2. It may be mentioned here that Tirath Ram is son of Banwari Lal. The suit was contested by Tirath Ram and Banwari Lal. They reiterated that Sant Ram was a tenant in the premises in dispute under Tirath Ram. The learned trial Court held that Inderjit was in possession of the premises in dispute since 1968 and was paying Rs. 38/- p.m. as rent to Banwari Lal, but still there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the status of the former in the premises in dispute was that of a trespasser. It was further held that even a trespasser could not be ejected from the premises in his possession otherwise than in due course of law. Accordingly, it granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining Tirath Ram from dispossessing Inderjit from the suit premises forcibly or in execution of the order of the Rent Controller or in any other way otherwise than in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved against that judgment and decree, Tirath Ram and Banwari Lal filed an appeal. Inderjit filed a separate appeal against the finding that he was a trespasser in the suit premises. Both these appeals were heard by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with Enhanced Appellate Powers), Ludhiana. He did not find any force in the two appeals and dismissed the same. Against those decrees, Tirath Ram and Banwari Lal have filed the present appeal, while Inderjit has filed the other appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the plaintiff Inderjit should not be treated as a trespasser, because there is specific statement of Banwari Lal (DW 1) to the effect that Inderjit was paying rent on behalf of Sant Ram. That plea of Banwari Lal is beyond the pleadings. In the written statement, the defendant nowhere pleaded that Inderjit was in possession of the premises in dispute as a sub-tenant or on behalf of Sant Ram. It was also not pleaded that Inderjit was paying rent on behalf of Sant Ram, who was said to be tenant in the premises in dispute under Tirath Ram.