Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the tenants under the defendant No. 1 as alleged in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff's are entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Relief.
5. The trial Court on the basis of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence led by the respective parties came to the conclusion that Rishi Parkash was tenant in the suit property in the year 1960. Since, admittedly, plaintiffs are legal heirs of Rishi Parkash and at no time had surrendered their tenancy rights, they continue to remain tenant at will. Reference was made by the trial Court to the judgment Exhibits P-5 and P-6 ejectment application filed by Rameshwar Dass wherein he had treated Rishi Parkash to be the tenant in respect of the property in dispute bearing No. 5241/2. This way the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were residing in the suit property and so decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 2, the Court held that since plaintiffs were not party to the ejectment proceedings, they cannot be ejected in execution of order passed against Panna Lal. Under issues No. 3 and 4, it was held that in view of the finding of the Court in respect of issue No. 1, plaintiffs have locus standi to file the present suit. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 25.11.1988 as prayed for.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred appeal and assailed the correctness of the judgment of the trial Court. Written arguments were called from the party as Bar was on strike they accordingly filed the same. The lower appellate Court once again examined the matter in its entirety. Making reference to the copies of the judgment Exhibit P-5 and P-6 wherein joint written statement was filed by Panna Lal and Rishi Prakash in a suit filed by predecessor in interest of the Appellant - Mr. L.B. Tandon - wherein it was mentioned that both of them were in possession of the premises in dispute as tenants. The Court further observed that on perusal of judgments Exhibit P-5 and P-6 it is manifest that predecessor-in-interest of L.B. Tandon, in fact, purchased the suit property in the year 1982, and treated Rishi Parkash to be his tenant and, in fact, filed ejectment petition against him. Since the appellant has stepped in the shoes of Rameshwar Dass, his predecessor-in-interest, he cannot be allowed to tune around and say that Rishi Parkash was not a tenant in the house in question. Support was also sought from an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.8.1958 - Exhibit P-3 that previously firm Lachhi Ram Panna Lal was in existence and after the death of Lachhi Ram, business was being run by Rishi Parkash his son. As regards the plea raised by the appellant that there is no proof on record that Rishi Parkash was in possession of the demised premises at the time of his death, reference was made to ration card Exhibit P-1, voter list Exhibit P-2 which record the names of Panna Lal and his family members as well as of the plaintiffs to be residing in house No. 5241 in the year 1980 when the voter list was prepared. Similar, entry finds record in the ration card as well. The lower appellate Court found no substance in the plea of the appellant that Rishi Parkash was not residing in the premises in dispute but was residing in house No. 5222. The lower appellate Court found not much substance in the plea of the appellant that letter Exhibit D-1 written by Rameshwar Dass to Panna Lal wherein no mention was made that Rishi Parkash was in occupation of the house in dispute is in any way conclusive and falsify the stand of the plaintiffs that they are in occupation of the premises in dispute as tenant. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs were tenants under the appellant in the suit property. In view of this finding, the lower appellate Court also affirmed the finding of the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiffs cannot be ejected in execution of an order of ejectment in which the plaintiffs were not party.