Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - CM No.3937-CI of 1987

This is an application for placing on record rent receipts alleged to have been paid by the tenant in favour of the mortgagee, I do not think it is necessary for consideration at the stage of civil revision petition. There is no justification for non-filing of these documents before the Rent Controller itself. If the amounts are said to represent payments made subsequent to the filing of the petition, they become irrelevant. In either case documents are not required to be received.

Civil Revision No.1875 of 1987

I. The facts that give rise to dispute

1. The civil revision is at the instance of the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed by the appellate Court in reversal of the judgment of the Rent Controller. Before the Rent Controller, the petition had been filed by purchasers of equity of redemption, who claimed that the tenant under the mortgagee had attorned the tenancy in their favour in a compromise entered into between them and the tenant. In the suit for redemption filed against the mortgagee and the tenants of the mortgagee, the property was in respect of all the property that had been purchased by them which included the shop in the possession of the tenant as well.

2. A few more facts would be necessary to set the case in its proper perspective. The property originally belonged to Gokal Chand, Kishori Lal, Kasturi Lal, Kapuri Lal and Tarsem Lal. They had usufructuarily mortgaged the property to Amar Nath and Dev Gupt for a period of 5 years to secure a loan of Rs.40,000/-. The original owners, who were the mortgagors, had sold the property to the landlords, who upon such purchase filed a suit for redemption making the mortgagees, mortgagors and the respective tenants as defendants in suit. The tenant, who is in revision petition before this Court, was 6th defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was brought about between the landlords and the tenant when a rent note was prepared on 05.03.1980. Statements of the parties, namely of Balbir Singh, representing the landlords and Sohan Lal, being the tenant, were recorded by the Court. In terms of the rent note and the statement recorded, the tenant-6th defendant was removed from array of parties. The trial progressed to adjudicate on the landlord’s right of redemption sought through their plaint. A preliminary decree had been passed by the trial Court on 24.07.1980 where the contest was essentially between the landlords and some other tenants, who had been resisting the action for redemption. In the manner of provision for the preliminary decree, the Court held that the mortgage with the defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- was liable to be redeemed and the period of redemption having commenced after 23.02.1977, the plaintiff would be entitled to redeem the same on payment of Rs.40,000/- to the mortgagee on or before 30.09.1980, failing which, the plaintiff’s suit would stand dismissed with costs. It is on the basis of the rent note that the landlords obtained and on the assertion that the amount as directed by the decree had been actually deposited that the landlords sought for action for eviction against the tenant on two grounds: (i) the tenant, who had undertaken to treat them as landlords and pay a rent of Rs.130/- per month did not pay the rent and has thus rendered himself liable for eviction; (ii) the tenant, who had conceded to the landlords’ status as such was however, denying the title and consequently forfeited the rights as tenant making himself liable for eviction on that ground as well.

II. The issue: whether there existed a subsisting jural relationship of tenancy between parties

3. To the petition filed by the landlords, the contest by the tenant was that the rent note executed on 05.03.1980 as a measure of compromise during the pendency of suit for redemption was provisional and was intended to take effect only when the landlords as plaintiffs