JUMMA Vs. LMADHUSOODAN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff- respondents for possession of certain houses and for the recovery of a certain amount on account of rent and meane profits. The houses are situated in a sarai in the town of Hapur in the District of Meerut. The defendants are Bhatiaras who ordinarily make their living by lodging guests in the houses in their occupation. The plaintiffs case was that they were the owners of the houses in dispute and had let out the same by means of a registered instrument dated 23 June 1911, to Chhanga, father of defendants 1 and 2, on an annual rental of Rs. 6. Chhanga died about 20 years before the date of the suit and it was alleged in the plaint that defendants-1 and 2 were in possession in his place (uske bajai). The fact that a notice to terminate the tenancy was given to the defendants was also recited in the plaint. On these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for the reliefs mentioned above.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. They denied that the plaintiffs were the owners either of the houses or of the site thereof and maintained that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the parties. They went on to allege that they were in possession of the house for about 80 years in the capacity of permanent reyayas (reyaya mustakil). They alleged that the plaintiffs were not in possession within 12 years of the date of the suit and the suit was barred by limitation. The validity of the notice given by the plaintiffs and the right of the plaintiffs to a decree for possession or for the rent claimed was also denied by the defendants. The rest of the pleas embodied in the written statement are immaterial for the decision of this appeal. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Are defendants 1 and 2 tenants of the plaintiffs in respect of the property in suit? 2. Were the plaintiffs in possession of the houses in suit within the last 12 years as landlords? If not, is the suit barred by limitation?

(3.) Did the plaintiffs serve the defendants with a valid notice to quit?