SHYAM SUNDAR Vs. NEENA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arises in this group of the revision petitions, the same are being decided and disposed of together by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondents - plaintiffs filed a suit for possession/eviction of defendants and recovery of arrears for the use and occupation of the premises (shops) in question. In the suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs it was stated that the shops in question came in her share pursuant to partition of Joint Hindu Family Property which was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh vide order and decree dtd. 2/4/2008. The petitioners- defendants, who rented the shops in question from the brother-in-law of the respondent - plaintiff namely Shri Ravi Mohan, were informed about the partition decree in the first week of May, 2008 and were requested to pay the rent to her, however, petitioners - defendants did not do so. In the month of December, 2008, the petitioners - defendants met with respondent - plaintiff and refused to recognize her as landlord. In these circumstances, a notice for termination of tenancy was served upon petitioners - defendants. However, even after service of notice, the vacant possession of the shops was not handed over to the respondents - plaintiffs. In these circumstances, a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession/eviction of defendants from the rented premises was filed against the petitioners - defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants submitted that a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint was filed by them before the learned trial Court. The petitioners - defendants also filed an application under Order Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. stating inter alia that the shop in question was taken on rent from Late G.D. Goyal and after death of Shri G.D. Goyal, the rent of the shop was being paid to his son Ravi Mohan. The present suit has been filed on the basis of the preliminary partition decree dtd. 2/8/2024 between respondents - plaintiffs, Ravi Mohan, Kanak Rajvanshi, Usha Kumar, Abha Chandra etc. Learned counsel submitted that in the application filed by the petitioners - defendants under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., it was also stated that the preliminary partition decree has been obtained by concealing the partition which had already taken place between Smt. Gayatri Devi, Chandra Mohan (husband of respondent - plaintiff), Ravi Mohan and G.D. Goyal.