AZIZ AHMAD, Vs. ALAUDDIN AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the same set of plaintiffs in suits for recovery of thica rent under verbal leases which have been described as mustajiri leases. The defendant in both the suits is the same. The suits though decreed by the trial Court have been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the lease being a verbal one was not legal under Section 107, T.P. Act, and therefore the defendant was not a tenant and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any rent. Decrees for use and occupation of the land were refused as the suits were not based on that ground. The plaintiffs have appealed. It will be useful to state a few facts in order to understand the legal position of the parties.

(2.) Nineteen gandas of the village belonged to two ladies, Bibi Tahera and Bibi Kubra, daughters of the late Nawab Amir Hasan Khan. In register D of the Collectorate however the name of their brother, Nawabzada Iqbal Husain, and not of the two ladies, was recorded in respect of these shares, and it is not disputed that the defendant took leases of these shares from the Nawabzada for the years 1321 to 1327. During the currency of the lease the ladies got their names registered in the Collectorate and, as found by the lower appellate Court, the Nawabzada directed the defendant to pay the rent of the share in question to them and the defendant did pay some rent to them. That lease ended in 1327.

(3.) Thereafter, according to the finding of the lower appellate Court, there were fresh verbal leases granted by the two ladies to the defendant for 7 years, i.e., for 1328 to 1334. The present plaintiffs are the representatives in interest of the two ladies, and it is on the basis of these verbal leases that the plaintiffs have instituted the suits for recovery of rent for four years from 1331 to 1334, that is, the last four years of the verbal lease. I must state at the outset that except denials of liability the defendant has not made any specific statement as to his position in respect of the rent claimed shares. Though he denies having taken a lease of the share from the two ladies, there is no denial of his being in possession of the shares during the years in suit.