RAM LAL SAHU Vs. MTBIBI ZOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals, one by the defendants and the other by the plaintiffs, in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs action was for an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing an alleged breach of an agreement of 1932, alternatively for possession of the property, notice to quit having been served. The agreement of 1932 was in settlement of certain proceedings taken by the plaintiffs under Section 107, Criminal P.C. There it was alleged that there was a possibility of a breach of the peace, that the defendants were not complying with the terms of their tenancy and of the agreement mentioned. The agreement, as I have said, was with regard to a roof, and it was therein undertaken by the defendants that they would build a thatched roof with tiles and would not make a chat; this was to be done with, in fifteen days.

(2.) The question that came to be determined by the trial Court and the Appellate Court was, first of all, whether there was a breach of the agreement of 1932; and, secondly whether the plaintiffs in the alternative were entitled to eject the defendants. The decision of the latter question depended upon whether the defendants had (as they alleged) a permanent lease or whether their tenancy was from month to month. Now, the issue as regards the tenancy has been decided against the plaintiffs, the Judge holding from the facts that there was a permanent tenancy. As regards the other question, the Judge has held that there has been a breach of the agreement. I propose in the first place to deal with the alleged breach of agreement of 1932. I might add at this stage that the case has been argued with great ability by Mr. Manuk on behalf of the defendants and by Mr. Khurshed Husnain on behalf of the plaintiffs, so I find it unnecessary to reserve my judgment although the arguments have been long and detailed. With regard to the question whether the defendants had broken the agreement of 1932, I must make a further statement. It appears that the present defendants came into possession of the premises by an assignment of 1930, two years before the agreement the breach of which is complained of.

(3.) But the original tenancy was one of 1913 under an agreement or kabuliyat which was unregistered and therefore inadmissible in evidence to prove that it was a permanent tenancy. There was a statement in the Court below that there was a patta, but that was not produced. Therefore both on the ground that the kabuliyat of 1913 was not registered and on the ground that there was no patta, having regard to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the document which I have before me is inadmissible for the purpose of proving the original tenancy of 1913.