OMKARMAL Vs. MANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 151/7.

(2.) THE allegations of the plaintiff were that the defendants were let into possession as tenants by document Ex. 1 dated 16-7-194. 5, but the defendants had not paid rent from 1-12-1948 to 30-11-1951 for a period of three years. The defendants admitted the execution of the rent note as also their being let into possession by the plaintiff, but pleaded that the particular property had been sold by auction sale in execution of a decree was purchased by one Khajan Singh, who obtained possession Of the property under orders of the court, and thereafter the interest of the plaintiff ceased in the property, and they began to pay rent to Khajan Singh, and subsequently to his assignee Kanhaiyalal Radhakishan, The trial Court, after evidence accepted the plea of the defendants, and dismissed the suit, and the same judgment was upheld on appeal.

(3.) IT was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the property originally belonged to Roopnarain, and had been mortgaged with the plaintiff, and that thereafter in execution of a decree against Roopnarain, the property was sold and purchased by Khajan Singh, but that nevertheless the defendants tenants continued to remain liable to the plaintiff-landlord as the tenancy had not been determined.