Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. It is borne from the record that Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 chose to accept limited tenancy rights under Section 21 of DRC Act under the Defendant No.4 before the Rent Controller, who was pleased to allow the application No. M-328 / 1979, vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D). The Defendant No.4, also issued Rent Receipts (Ex.PW1/E). The Defendant No.5 has failed to dispute the same. In these circumstances Shanti Devi remained a tenant in the suit property and could not have sold the suit property to any person, without disclosing the nature of her possession in the suit property as that of a tenant under Defendant No. 4. The obtainment of relinquishment deeds by her from her daughters, after having entered into agreement to sell, etc., and creating of limited tenancy in her favour is fraudulent. The alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998, executed by her in favour of Rameshwar Dayal, father of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is nothing but an extension of that fraud. Since the Plaintiffs never pleaded any right flowing through children of Shanti Devi, there was no need to implead them. Further, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) failed to place on record any cogent evidence in regard to the objection raised by him with regard to the nonjoinder of parties i.e., the other Legal Representatives/Heirs of Shri Rameshwar Dayal. No evidence in support of his objection is placed on record. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) has not revealed the identity of the other legal heirs of his deceased father Sh. Rameshwar Dayal.

85. As per the plaint, Rajwati (Defendant No.4) had purchased the suit property from Smt. Shanti Devi and Bharat Singh Kain (Defendant No.2) and they got executed all necessary sale documents including agreement to sell dated 24.04.1979, General Power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant No.3 (husband of the Defendant No.4). Thereafter, Defendant No.4 executed the customary documents in favour of Defendant No.1.

86. Admittedly, Smt. Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 after executing necessary sale papers in favour of the Defendant No.4 chose to continue their occupation by seeking limited tenancy rights under Section 21 of DRC Act with the permission and consent of the Defendant No.4 before the judicial forum. The Rent Controller was pleased to allow the said application i.e., No. M-328 / 1979 and vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D), as a consequence, the Defendant No.4, in due fairness issued Rent Receipts (Ex.PW1/E). As soon as the permission for limited tenancy was granted by the Rent Controller, it became an admission on the part of Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 that they acknowledged and accepted their tenancy in the suit property as well as the ownership and title of Smt. Rajwati (Defendant No.4) for the entire suit property on the basis of all the documents executed by them in favour of Rajwati (Defendant No.4).

89. Further, Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) in his written statement in reply to para 3&4 has categorically admitted that Smt. Shanti Devi had executed "some" documents in favour of the Defendant no.3&4 which is specific and gives strength to the case of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) in his written statement as well as the evidence remains completely silent on the aspect of creation of limited tenancy under Section 21 of DRC Act in favour of the Defendant No.4. The Rent Controller allow the application i.e., No. M-328 / 1979 vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D). On the other hand, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No.