SAH SITA RAM Vs. SYED MOHAMMAD MEHDI NAWAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crucial, and main question for determination in this, plaintiffs appeal is, whether the defendants second party are also liable for damages for three years before the suit for not putting the plaintiffs in possession of the lease-hold properties, notwithstanding that the defendants second party terminated their tenancy under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act by a notice dated the 9th February, 1942, with effect from the 1st March, 1942, in which they informed the plaintiffs that they (defendants second party) were not in possession of the house in question, and, that Amiri Begum, defendant first party, was occupying a portion of it as admitted in the plaint. If the defendants second, party are held so liable, then the question would arise, if the plaintiffs' claim for damages against them is barred by limitation.

(2.) The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment of Mr. S. Saghir Hussain, Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, who has dismissed their claim for damages against the defendants second party, ex-tenants of holding in question.

(3.) The facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the holding in dispute. The holding number is 83, and in the present suit we are concerned only with the inner apartment known as 'Kamras', that is, the entire residential quarters, excluding katras or shops. These kamras in suit have been admittedly in possession of the defendants second party and their predecessors-in-interest from a long time. The rental payable by the defendants second party for the portion of holding No. 83 in dispute was Rs. 75/- a month. The plaintiffs obtained several decrees for house rent against the defendants second party on the finding that they were their tenants. After the disposal of the last rent suit in 1939, the defendants second party served a notice on the plaintiffs on the 9th February, 1942 terminating their tenancy by the 28th February, 1942, and,, they also served a notice on Amiri Bibi, the defendant first party, who was in actual possession of the house in question.