GURDEEP SINGH ANAND Vs. RAKESH KUMAR (MASTER)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree "dated July 5, 1984, passed by learned City Judge, Jammu dismissing the suit of premises situated on the first floor of House No. 126 behind Laxmi Temple, Kalijani, Jammu consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and a lobby. Appellants case was that his father, Late S. Jagjit Singh, obtained from Sh. Hans Raj Suri the above said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ - in the year 1964. Hans Raj Suri died in the year 1970 leaving behind Sh. Dina Nath and as such his father executed rent deed in favour of said Dina Nath Suri. Dina Nath Suri also died in the year 1978 leaving behind Dev Raj Suri as his one of legal heirs who started collecting rent from his father. His father expired in October, 1980 and Dev Raj Suri accepting him as tenant started collecting rent from him.

(2.) APPELLANTS further case was that Dev Raj Suri and others, owners of the house, without giving any notice to him, sold entire house No. 126 to respondents 1 & 2 herein vide sale deed dated December 15,1980 registered on the same date for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ -. Market value of the house was not more than Rs. 16000/ - but an amount of Rs. 30,000/ - was wrongly mentioned in the sale deed to defeat action by a prospective pre -emptor. He being a tenant of part of the said house had a right of prior purchase in respect of such premises. He contacted the respondents and requested them to concede to his right of prior purchase in respect of the suit premises but they refused to do so which forced him to file a suit.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit was bad on account of partial pre -emption of the property, the value of the property not correctly shown and the sale consideration was much more than the jurisdiction of this court. They further submitted that the father of the plaintiff had obtained the suit premises on rent from Late Dina Nath for eleven months and they denied the plaintiff or his father having paid any rent after the death of Dina Nath. Defendant No. 3 never accepted the plaintiff as tenant and also never received rent from him. They further stated in the written statement that sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/ - as mentioned in the sale deed was actually paid and the plaintiff had put imaginary value of Rs. 7000/ - in the suit. Other respondents -defendants in their written statement averred that they were not aware of relationship of tenant and landlord between Jagjit Singh and Hans Raj Suri. They, however, admitted that Jagjit Singh was a tenant of Dina Nath Suri deceased and after the death of Jagjit Singh his legal heirs became tenants of the suit property.