RAHMAT BI SAHEBA Vs. RKRISHNA DOSS LALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against the decree of the City Civil Judge in O.S. No. 728 of 1935. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to eject the defendants from the land and superstructure bearing Door No. 46, Fakir Sahib Second Lane, Triplicane. The suit was originally filed against defendant 1 only on the footing that she alone was the tenant of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 2. The plaint averred that the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 9 March 1935 in which the plaintiff offered compensation for the value of the superstructure under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Defendant 1 filed a written statement pleading that she was not interested in the property in suit and that three other persons, who were later on added as defendants 2, 3 and 4, were the persons entitled to the suit property as tenants. She stated that under a sale deed dated 10 June 1912, she, her husband, the late Dawood Saheb, and her son Abdul Wahab had purchased the leasehold interest together with the superstructure from the previous tenant, that her husband's one-third share now vested in defendant 4, that the one-third share belonging to herself was sold by her to defendant 3 Zulaika Bi by a deed dated 4 December 1934 and that the tenants who were really interested are defendants Q, 3 and 4. After the statement was filed, an application was made to the City Civil Judge to implead the three persons mentioned by defendant 1 as party defendants to the suit. The lower Court granted this application by its order dated 7 October 1935, but it would appear that the amendment was not incorporated in the plaint until the date of the judgment. Nevertheless, summonses were taken to the newly added defendants and they pleaded among other things that they were not served with the requisite notice under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, and that therefore the suit was not maintainable against them under Section 11 of the Act. They also stated that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against them and that in any event they were entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, and that they were prepared to pay the value of the land and to buy the same and requested the Court to fix the value in accordance with the terms of the Act. Three issues were raised, (1) whether the suit was bad for want of proper notice to quit, (2) whether the suit was maintainable as framed and (3) what is the amount of compensation payable to the plaintiff in case the defendants desire to acquire the land.

(2.) On issue (1) the lower Court held that the suit was not bad for want of proper notice. On issue 2 it held that the suit was maintainable as framed and on issue 3 it fixed compensation originally at the rate of Rs. 1800 per ground and varied the same on a review application made to it increasing it to Rs. 2050 per ground. Defendants appeal to this Court. It is argued on their behalf that the view of the lower Court on issues 1 and 2 is wrong and that the finding, of the Judge on issue 3 is vitiated by a consideration of number of documents which are irrelevant and not really admissible for the purpose of determining the value of the suit land in accordance with the terms o? the Act.

(3.) On the first question, the view expressed by the learned Judge is that when a tenant dies or assigns his interest, there is no need to give notices to all the heirs in the former case or to the assignee in the latter case. He finds that the plaintiff had no notice of the claim of the other defendants and that therefore he was entitled to proceed with his suit for ejectment after notice only to defendant 1. The question is whether the notice given to defendant 1 alone is enough under the circumstances of this case. The leasehold interest in the land appears to have been originally held by one Mahomed Azeemuddin Sahib. He sold the site and the superstructure (he had only a leasehold interest in so far as the site is concerned) to three persons under Ex. 1 dated 10 June 1912. The vendees were (1 Dawood Saheb, (2) his wife Rahamat Bi Ammal and (3) his minor son Abdul Wahab Sahib. Rahamat Bi is defendant 1 in the suit and Abdul Wahab is defendant 2; he is now said to be a lunatic. By Ex. 2 dated 1st January 1915, Dawood Sahib gifted away his interest in the site and superstructure to Abdul Sukkur Sahib, his son by his senior wife, and to Ratima Bi, his daughter who is defendant 4. It is common ground that the right of Abdul Sukkur Sahib has vested in defendant 4. In 1934, defendant 1 conveyed her one-third share to defendant 3 by a registered deed.