JUDGMENT.-The first defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one in ejectment and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The suit property which is a land with building was originally owned by Khader Masthan and Mohideen Masthan who are brothers. Both of them are dead. Mohamed Hanifa, the son of Khader Masthan had leased out the property to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. Defendants 2 to 11 are in possession of portions of the property as sub-lessees under the first defendant.

2. Subsequently the heirs of Khader Masthan and Mohideen Masthan including the abovesaid Mohamed Hanifa who had leased out the property to the first defendant sold the property to the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 dated 17th February, 1966. The vendors have issued a notice as per Exhibit B-5 dated 19th February, 1966 to the first defendant intimating about the abovesaid sale of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself issued a notice, Exhibit B-4, dated 21st February, 1966 intimating the first defendant about her purchase of the property. Further correspondence followed. In the meanwhile, that is on 7th March, 1966 and 31st March, 1966, the first defendant took two sale deeds from some of the heirs of the abovesaid Khader Masthan and Mohideen Masthan and under each of the sale deeds, a 13/96 share is said to be conveyed to the first defendant by those heirs. By virtue of these two sale deeds, the first defendant claimed that he had become the owner of 13/48 share in the property and that the plaintiff cannot claim ownership to the entire property. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued the notice Exhibit B-8 dated 22nd March, 1966 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the first defendant to vacate with effect from 31st May, 1966. This was followed up by a petition for eviction in the Rent Control Court. H.R.C. No. 3992 of 1966 is the petition filed by the plaintiff for eviction on three grounds, namely (1) wilful default in payment of rent (2) subletting the premises without the written consent of the landlord and (3) the landlord requiring the premises for her own occupation. In that petition the first defendant denied the petitioner’s (Plaintiff’s) title to the property. The Rent Controller recorded a finding that the denial of title made by the first defendant is bona fide. By virtue of the second proviso to section 10 (1) of Act XVIII of 1960 once the Rent Controller records a finding that there is a bona fide denial of title, then the ordinary Civil Court would get jurisdiction to evict the tenant provided any one of the grounds under the Rent Control Act is made out. It is by virtue of the said proviso, the suit out of which this appeal arises had been filed. The plaintiff claimed possession of the property and also arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month upto 31st May, 1966 as well as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 300 per month from 1st June, 1966 onwards.

3. The first defendant raised various contentions and a number of issues had been raised before the trial Court. The question whether the first defendant had become a co-owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deeds Exhibits B-2 and B-3 in her favour and on that score the plaintiff should be non-suited had been raised but that had not been pressed before the lower Court. After negativing the other contentions raised by the first defendant the Court below decreed the suit but did not agree with the plaintiff that she is entitled to damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 300 per month from 31st May, 1966. The Court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem right from the date of Exhibit A-1, the sale in favour of the plaintiff till date of delivery of possession. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross-objections regarding the damages for use and occupation claimed by her.

4. Three contentions were raised by the learned Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document