Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In their written statements respondents admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between Ch. Kheman Ram, late father of the appellant and deceased Ram Narain. However they objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, due to non execution of the decree for ejectment passed in 1957 within a period of 12 years. It was stated that because of the aforesaid the tenancy of the deceased Ramnarain also stood determined. After his death, the respondents continued occupying the property as trespassers and after expiry of 12 years since than, they became owner by adverse possession. It was submitted that the appellant in his notices dated 6.11.1970 and 9.8.1972 himself described the first respondent as a trespasser / unauthorized occupant. Thus the suit was barred by limitation.

vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP
vii) Relief.

7. The than Civil Judge ( Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik) who tried the suit initially held that the suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata on account of non execution of the ejectment order passed in 1957. The aforesaid decision was given only by deciding issue No.5. The said order was challenged in appeal and was reversed by the ld. Additional District Judge. It was held that the appellant being the son of late Ch. Kheman Ram who was the owner of the property had the locus standii to file the suit. However the case was remanded back to the Civil Judge with a direction to also decide other issues. Some observations made by the appellate court are as under:

The onus of establishing the issue was on the defendant. This appeal is therefore to be disposed of by scrutiny of the correctness of the finding on issue no 5. The facts for the purpose of disposal of the issue no 5 to the effect that plaintiff's father who was admittedly the landlord of the predecessor in interest of the defendant had obtained an ejectment decree in the year 1957 and that decree had not been put to execution. There was no evidence that any attempt had been made by him to obtain the permission of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Act. There was, however, a clear assertion that deceased was treated to be in possession by holding over so much so that a decree for mesne profits was also passed against him in the year 1963. there is no specific denial in the written statement about the fact of passing of this decree. It has, therefore, to be taken as established that the DH Kheman Ram namely plaintiff's father irrespective of the fact that the decree had not been put to execution did not treat Ram Narayan, deceased as a tenant in the property, as evidenced by the fact that he sued him for the recovery of mesne profits for use and occupation and not for rent. The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court on which the Ld counsel for the appellant placed reliance reported in AIR 1983 DELHI 114 has a direct application to the facts of the present case because the facts are similar in as much as here also the ejectment decree was not put to execution and no permission even of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Act had been applied for and that the decree remained unexecuted against the tenant till his death and thereafter a suit for recovery for possession has been brought against his legal heirs which suit was held to be perfectly maintainable.

47. In view of the aforesaid, it is held :

i) That on account of non execution of the ejectment order passed in 1957 which was in executable as there was no provision in the decree to remove the super structure, the status of Ram Narain in his life time remained as that of tenant by holding over.
ii) The respondents who are legal representative of the deceased tenant inherited similar rights as vested in the deceased tenant till such time they set up the claim of ownership by way of adverse possession