IAITQAD ALI Vs. MUHAMMAD BAKHSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, and for an injunction restraining Mt. Abbasi, who was arrayed as defendant 3, from realising the plaintiffs share of the rent from defendants 1 and 2, who were alleged by the plaintiffs to be in possession of the house in dispute as tenants. On the 10 October 1917, Iaitqad Ali, defendant, and Abdulla, father of Iaitqad Ali, executed a kirayanama in favour of Salimullah for a period of eleven months with respect to the house in dispute. Salimullah died leaving the plaintiffs and Mt. Abbasi as his heirs. Abdulla is also dead, and defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants in this Court, are his heirs.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that the defendants were in occupation of the house as tenants, and were liable to pay the rent claimed by them. The defence to the suit was that the rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs was not binding on the defendants, and that the defendants have all along remained in possession of the house as owners, without paying any rent to the plaintiffs or to Salimullah, their predecessor-in-title, and that the suit was time barred. The trial Court overruled all the pleas urged in defence, and decreed the plaintiffs suit, and on an appeal by the defendants, the decree of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has held that the kirayanama having been executed by Abdulla the predecessor-in-title of the defendants and by Iaitqad Ali, defendant 1, the defendants cannot be allowed to deny the title of their landlord, and as such the defendants were bound to pay the rent claimed by the plaintiffs. It also held that there can be no adverse possession of the tenants on the expiry of the terms of the lease, but the tenants would be considered to hold on sufferance after the expiry of the term of the lease.