Harish vs Smt. Sarla Devi and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will dispose of C. R. Nos. 2848, 2849, 2850 and 2851 of 1985 as the question involved is common in all these cases.

Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi daughter of Rochi Ram from his wife Mehangi Bai filed four ejectment applications against their tenants Harish, Bansi, R. S. Mittal and Radhey Sham giving rise to these four petitions. It was pleaded in the ejectment applications that the premises in dispute were owned and possessed by Mehangi Bai widow of Rochi Ram. She had purchased the premises from the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Govt. of India and a conveyance deed was executed in her name on 2-1-1969. Said Mehangi Bai died on 23-3-1972 and her husband Rochi Ram, their father died on 27-1-1976. Thus the daughters are the only legal heirs and successors-in-interest of later Mehangi Bai. They have also inherited the suit property along with other properties in equal shares. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1981 at the rate of Rs. 135/- per month and secondly that they required the premises in dispute for their own occupation and use. The petition was contested mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. It was pleaded in the written statement that Murti Mata Veshno Mandir is the owner/landlord of the whole house by virtue of a will executed by Rochi Ram in its favour, it had become its owner and that Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi had no right in the property in question. Thus, according to the tenants, their landlord is Murti Mata Veshno Mandir and not the said Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi. However, on trial, the learned Rent Controller found that there being no documentary evidence it could not be held that the present Petitioners are the tenants under them. In view of that finding, ejectment applications were dismissed. In the appeals filed on behalf of the landladies, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landladies and tenants between the parties. While coming to this conclusion it was observed that

In this state of evidence, there should have been no difficulty in accepting the testimony of Bimla Appellant when she said that the house was let out by her and her husband to the Respondents. As already observed, it is not a case in which the Respondents merely denied the title of the Appellants in the property and claimed some title in themselves other than that of tenants. The short and simple question to be determined was as to who inducted the Respondents as tenants in the property. The defence and evidence of the Respondents is. wholly inconsistent No interest whatever either of the temple or of Pushpa Devi has been shown in the property. Under these circumstances, the version of the Appellants finds assurance in that they inducted the Respondents as tenants and no one else.

Consequently, eviction orders were passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the four tenants have filed these petitions.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly the Petitioners are the tenants on the demised premises. The only question is whether they are the tenants under Murti Mata Veshno Mandir or they are the tenants under Sarla Devi and Bimla Devi. There is no cogent evidence on the record to show that the Petitioners were ever inducted as tenants by the institution known as Murti Mandir or by Pushpa Devi as alleged in the written statement. Nor they have come forward to claim any interest in the premises in dispute. In the absence of any such evidence the Respondents being the owners of the property, have been rightly held to be Jandladies qua these Petitioners. Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the appellate authority.

Consequently, all the petitions fails and are dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioners are allowed 3 months time to vacate the premises provided all arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over, and for this period rent will be paid by the 10th of every month in advance.