AFZAL-UN-NISA Vs. ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE predecessors in title of the appellants in these consolidated appeals were plaintiffs in three suits of ejectment in respect of three parcels of land held by the respondents, respectively. Questions as to sufficiency of notice were raised, but need not be alluded to. The real question at issue is raised by the defence of each of the respondents, which has been upheld by the Courts below - namely, that they are permanent tenants at a fixed rent which has admittedly been paid since the beginning of the tenancy, and as such cannot be evicted on the allegation that they are tenants-at-will.

(2.) THE parcels of land in question are situated in a suburb of Delhi, and are covered by buildings of masonry occupied by the respondents. It is admitted that the respondents' predecessors in title were invited to occupy the land for building purposes by predecessors of the appellants in about the year 1859. No document showing the terms of occupancy is extant, nor is there any reliable oral evidence of what passed at that time. But the facts found, and as to which indeed there is no dispute, are that from that time onwards a uniform and fixed rent has been paid, that in some of the receipts given by the landlord the term "permanent" as applied to the rents is used, that the respondents and their predecessors in title have erected substantial buildings without objection on the part of the landlord, that they have dealt with their properties by way of sale and mortgage, and that the properties have passed by succession. In these circumstances, the learned judges of the Courts below have held that the case is in substantially the same position as the case of Caspersz v. Kader Nath Sarbadhikari (1901) I.L.R. 28 C. 738 The head-note of that case, which accurately represents what is decided, is in these terms:

(3.) THEIR Lordships may also add that, quite apart from the ground on which the case was decided by the learned judges below, there is another valid ground of judgment. There were produced several sale deeds of superstructure houses on the ground by the plaintiffs' predecessors, in which there was a distinct acknowledgment that the houses themselves were held by the tenant in virtue of a permanent tenancy. This would be an estoppel as against the plaintiffs.