MANOHAR LAL Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for the grant of the declaration with a consequential relief of possession in respect of the shop, bearing No. EP-834, situated at Palwal, on the allegations that the same was an evacuee property and, therefore, vested in the Custodian from whom Purshotam Dass, the father of the plaintiffs, purchased the same in satisfaction of his claim and Department of Rehabilitation, issued a sale certificate which was registered with the Sub Registrar, Palwal, on November 2, 1972. The said Purshotam Dass let out the property to Monahar Lal, defendant-appellant, but the Punjab Wakf Board, defendant No. 1, in collusion with the said Manohar Lal filed a suit on December 31, 1970, against him and obtained a collusive decree on December 18, 1971, in which Manohar Lal, appellant, admitted the Board as his landlord. The plaintiffs were not impleaded as parties to the aforesaid suit. Manohar La, appellant, attorned in favour of the Board in the said suit, but the decree passed in the said suit was not binding on the plaintiffs who still continued to be the owners of the shop, in question. It was further pleaded that since Manohar Lal, appellant, had disclaimed the tenancy of the plaintiffs, he had become a trespasser his possession had become unauthorised and, therefore, his tenancy stood forfeited and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the shop, in dispute, from him. In the written statement filed on behalf of Manohar Lal, the pleas of maintainability of the suit, estoppel etc. were raised. It was also pleaded that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was in nature of inter-pleader suit between the Punjab Wakf Board and then as both of them claimed to be the owners of shop, in dispute. He admitted that the Board had filed a suit against him in which the application of the plaintiffs to implead them as a party was rejected and it was then that he had agreed to pay rent to the Board. He denied having repudiated the title of the plaintiff regarding the shop under his tenancy. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were the owners of shop, in dispute, and, thus, granted the decree for declaration in their favour. However, the suit was dismissed in respect of the relief of possession holding that the act of Manohar Lal, defendant, in attorning to the Board in the suit filed by it against him did not amount to a disclaimer of the title of the landlord and that the tenancy was not forfeited. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal for grant of the relief of possession. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers came to the conclusion that Manohar Lal, tenant, had repudiated the title of the plaintiffs and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. Consequently, the decree for possession was also passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, Manohar Lal, tenant, has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant never repudiated the title of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the tenancy rights were not forfeited. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the trial Court in this behalf was correct, but the same has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mohd. Amir v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, 1965 AIR(SC) 1923 and Rukmini v. Rayaji, 1924 AIR(Bom) 454