DHARAM CHAND SHUKLA AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chaudhary Ram the predecessor in interest of Pushpa Devi had mortgaged 1/32 share of land comprised in Khata No.119, Kita 2, measuring 1-12K and 1/21 share of land comprised in Khata No.133, Khasra No.127 measuring 1K-1M in favour of Pushpa Devi for a consideration of Rs.1500/-. Ext.PX is reflective of mutation No.1000 of 23.7.1980 standing inconsonance therewith attested by the revenue officer. For reasons recorded in RSA No. 342 of 2006 this Court has held of the relevant mutation of mortgage also encompassing within its ambit the double storeyed shops, in upper storey whereof the respondent stands in remarks column of Ext.P-2 reflected to be a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.175/-, exhibit whereof constitute the jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Even if on anvil thereof this Court holds, qua the conclusion arrived at by the learned Appellate Court qua mutation aforesaid holding no compatibility vis.a.vis the relevant double storeyed shops, in upper storey whereof the respondent is a tenant, to be both infirm as well as warranting interference. However, the aforesaid inference would not per se entitle the landlord/petitioner to secure an order of eviction of the tenant from the demised premises unless potent evidence of immense formidability stands adduced qua under a testamentary disposition executed by the apposite deceased legator her standing constituted therein as his legatee qua the demised premises. However, no testamentary disposition executed by her predecessor in interest displaying qua hers thereunder standing bestowed with title qua the demised premises stands adduced by the petitioner. Consequently she is disentitled to espouse qua hers holding title to the demised premises also she stands baulked to contend of hers holding any concomitant right to seek eviction of the respondent therefrom.

(2.) Be that as it may, the petitioner had placed reliance upon rent deed comprised in Ext.PW-1/B and upon Ext.PW-1/C for hinging thereupon an indefeasible claim qua the respondent/tenant defraying to her rent qua the demised premises factum whereof of defrayment of rent to her hence constituting his acquiescing qua hers holding title qua it whereupon she hence stands entitled to stake a claim for his eviction therefrom. However, the aforesaid contention is legally unworthwhile given Ext.PW-1/B holding no reflections qua the rent payable qua the demised premises by the respondent/tenant. Also it looses its probative vigour, it standing not efficaciously proven by adduction of best evidence qua its standing signatured by the respondent/tenant. Also the purported rent deed qua the demised premises comprised in Ext.PW-1/C similarly stands unproven by the petitioner qua the facet aforesaid. Even if assumingly Ext.PW-1/B and Ext.PW-1/C stand concluded by this Court to stand executed qua the demised premises by respondent/tenant yet the factum of their execution would not per se foist in the petitioners any right to assert qua theirs holding title qua unless potent evidence stood evinced qua theirs holding qua the demised premises a testamentary disposition recorded by their predecessor in interest whereunder the relevant demised premises stood bequeathed to their predecessor in interest to them. Since the apposite testamentary disposition qua the demised premises whereunder Pushpa Devi stood bequeathed the demised premises stands unadduced rather capitalizes an inference qua the petitioners holding no title qua the demised premises nor hence they standing entitled to stake any right qua the respondent-tenant being ordered to be evicted therefrom. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.