Skip to content


Pukha Vs. Poonam Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 183 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)233
AppellantPukha
RespondentPoonam Chand
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredBabulal and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal & Shri Ram Pasricha
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - ejectment suit decreed by both lower courts--held, finding of fact cannot be interfered in second appeal--tenant cannot challenge validity of title of landlord;both the courts below have decreed the suit holding the appellant as tenant and the plaintiff-respondent as the landlord having purchased the property vide ex. 1 sale deed and in second appeal i cannot disturb this finding of fact. it is not open for the tenant or for the court to decide whether the sale deed ex. 1 has been validly executed or has passed the title legally to the plaintiff-landlord.;appeal allowed. - .....the property vide ex. 1 executed by shri mishri lal as special power of attorney holder of amolakchand. the appellant was occupying the suit premises as a tenant vide ex. 3 rent-note executed in favour of amolak chand and his son chain raj. the plaintiff gave a notice terminating the tenancy and filed the present suit. the suit was. contested by the appellant. in the trial court, after recording the evidence decreed the plaintiff's suit. the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate court i.e. the additional district judge, pali and hence this appeal.3. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that chainraj was a necessary party in the suit and since the notice terminating the tenancy was. only given by the plaintiff who had purchased the property from amolak chand.....
Judgment:

Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal in a rent and ejectment suit filed by plaintiff respondent.

2. The plaintiff purchased the property vide Ex. 1 executed by Shri Mishri Lal as special power of attorney holder of Amolakchand. The appellant was occupying the suit premises as a tenant vide Ex. 3 rent-note executed in favour of Amolak Chand and his son Chain Raj. The plaintiff gave a notice terminating the tenancy and filed the present suit. The suit was. contested by the appellant. In the trial court, after recording the evidence decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree was confirmed by the first appellate court i.e. the Additional District Judge, Pali and hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Chainraj was a necessary party in the suit and since the notice terminating the tenancy was. only given by the plaintiff who had purchased the property from Amolak Chand only the suit should have been dismissed and he placed reliance on Vagha Jesing v. Manilal Bhogilal Desai and Ors. AIR 1935 Bom. 262; Smt. Chhoti Dei v. Gangadhar Misra and Anr. AIR 1953 Orissa 245; Arun Chandra Dowerah v. Panchu Modok and Ors. AIR 1957 Assam 70; Jamir Ahmad v. Madhavanand and Ors. : AIR1979All104 and Kanakarathanammal v. V.S. Longanatha Mudaliar and Anr. : [1964]6SCR1 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of the Supreme Court decision notice terminating the tenancy need not be given before filing a suit. Moreover, the tenant cannot question or dispute the title in a rent and ejectment suit. He has further submitted that Amolak Chand was the father of Chainraj and in Ex. 1 sale-deed Amolak Chand has described the property as ancestral. Moreover, it is a matter between Amolakchand and his son Chainraj and the tenant has no right to challengs and raise the issue in a rent and ejectment suit. He has placed reliance on Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Ors. : [1977]3SCR412 ; Haladhar Sharma v. Assam Go-Seva Samity AIR 1979 Gauhati 23, Babulal and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal & Shri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 3335.

4. I have gone through the record of the case as also the submissions made at the Bar and the authorities cited. Both the courts below have decreed the suit holding the appellant as tenant and the plaintiff-respondent as the landlord having purchased the property vide Ex. 1 sale-deed and in second appeal I cannot disturb this finding of fact. It is not open for the tenant or for the court to decide whether the sale-deed Ex. 1 has been validly executed or has passed the title legally to the plaintiff-landlord.

5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. However, since the appellant is in occupation of the suit premises for a long time, I think it proper in the interest of justice to grant 3 months time to vacate the suit premises and hand-over vacant possession to the plaintiff-respondent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //