Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. That as hereinbefore stated the predecessor of this defendant and his brother being a tenant in respect of the suit property the said tenancy devolved on them and thus the plaintiff's suit was framed by suppressing the said fact is patently misconceived."

The specific case of the defendant no.1 is that the father died on January 7, 1992, but the plaintiff continued to grant receipt in the name of the deceased father till April 2005. The mother predeceased the father. From May 2005 no receipts were granted in favour of the defendant no.1 and his brother and deposits were made before the learned rent controller. However, the specific dates, time and period of the deposit before the rent controller is absent in the written statement. It has also been stated that considerable amount of money was spent for installation of deep tubewell and that the plaintiff refused to grant rent receipt to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff also refused to provide basic amenities available in the suit property. In paragraph 11 of the written statement, it has been stated that after the demise of the father, the defendant and his brother became tenants in respect of the property by devolution from their predecessor. The plaintiff's suit was framed by suppressing the fact of devolution. The brother, i.e., predecessor of the defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 late Tulsi Ram Thakkar, also died.

In this case, the defendant no.1 has specifically admitted that the original tenant died in 1992. The mother pre-deceased the father and there are specific averments that he was residing in the premises as the tenancy devolved upon him and his brother (since deceased). Such devolution was by way of inheritance and there is not a single averment which would show that the defendants had been recognized as tenants by the plaintiff after the death of the father.
Thus, the averments made in the written statement are clear and unambiguous with regard to the devolution of tenancy and the status of the defendants. Even if the defendant no.1 is contesting the suit, the claim on which the defendant no.1 was asserting his tenancy right in the property, is by inheritance from the original tenant. This fact cannot be disregarded and amounts to an admission.