RAMKRISHNA SINGH Vs. MAHADEI HALUAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of this Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for eviction.

(2.) The properly consists of 2 kathas and 10 dhurs of land in plot No. 965 within Jugsalai Thana in which a residential house has been constructed. The previous owner of the plot, namely Sardar Amrit Siugh granted a palta of the same to respondent No. 1 on 8-6-1936 (Exhibit A) in which he stated that after obtaining salami of Rs. 500 from her he leased out the property to her on the basis of payment of an annual rental of Rs. 2/2/-. The patta was, however, not signed by the lessee and was also not registered. But it has been found as a fact by all the Courts that in pursuance of the patta the lessee obtained possession of the plot and has been paying rent to the landlord. The said Sardav Amril Singh sold the property to the plaintiff appellant by a sale deed (Exhibit 2) dated 10-10-1953. The plaintiff then, alter giving usual notice to quit, sued defendant No. 1 for eviction, impleading his vendor as pro forma defendant No. 2. Though the plaintiff's suit was decreed in the two lower courts, the learned single Judge dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was entitled to the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether this view of the learned single Judge is correct.

(3.) Mr. Mahabir Prasad for the appellant raised the following two contentions. Firstly he urged that for the purpose of taking the help of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant must show that there was a completed contract in writing. According to him the patta, exhibit A, being a unilateral document signed only by the lessor, will not complete the contract inasmuch as Section 107 of the Transfer of Properly Act requires that a lease must be signed both by the lessor and the lessee. Secondly, he urged that the burden was on defendant No. 1 to show that the plaintiff had notice of the lease executed in the defendant's favour by the plaintiff's predecessor, namely, Sardar Amrit Singh. Each of these will be dealt with in turn.