GULSHAN Vs. PISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' regular second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of house No. EP 435 HT No. 1600/2 situated in Tejpura, Rewari on the ground that the same was ordered to be transferred to the plaintiff vide order dated 5.3.1960 and conveyance deed to this effect was issued by the Rehabilitation Department on 8.4.1980 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 26.6.1980. It is further case of the plaintiff that Ram Lal son of Khillu Ram was allottee of the ground floor. Ram Lal was father of the defendants. He was in arrears of rent which the defendants have not paid do far. By virtue of the relevant rules and instructions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 the status of Ram Lal (who since has expired) and the defendants is that of a licensee who have no legal right to occupy or possess the property. A legal notice was issued revoking the licence but to no effect. Even if it is held that the defendants are not licensees at best their status is that of a trespassers and so in that eventuality also they are liable to be dispossessed.

(3.) Defendants were served. Defendants 1 and 6 put in appearance through their counsel Shri M.L. Rustgi whereas defendant No. 3 was represented by Shri M.S. Gupta, Advocate. Remaining defendants were proceeded ex parte. The contesting defendants filed their written statements stating therein that they continued to be in possession of the property as owners since 23.4.1951 and that the order of allotment has not been cancelled so far. Defendants further stated that order dated 5.3.1960 was set aside on 19.4.1960 and otherwise too the property cannot be allotted to the plaintiff as he does not fall within the definition of an evacuee person. The defendants further asserted that their status is neither that of a licensee or of a tress passer. In fact their possession is lawful in terms of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and so the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the suit property.