AIYASHA BEGUM Vs. KAPURCHAND RAHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the original defendants 1 - A, 1 - B and 1 - C against the judgment and decree dated June 22, 1967, made by the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court declaring that the gala No. 10 mentioned in the plaint had been validly assigned to the plaintiff under the deed of assignment dated September, 19, 1958, and further declaring that these appellants were trespassers and not entitled to remain in possession of a portion of the above gala No. 10 and granting a decree in ejectment as against these appellants and further granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month as from April 19, 1958, till delivery of possession and costs of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that defendants 2 and 3 i. e. , Chhotu Balu and Hansu Murat were joint tenants of the above gala No. 10. These two persons resided at and in a portion of the above gala and also carried on their business of gas welding in the gala. These two persons sold to the plaintiff under a deed of assignment dated April 19, 1958, their business of gas welding together with all stocks - in - trade, fixtures, furniture and goodwill thereof along with the tenancy rights of the business premises as incidental to the said running concern for the price of Rs. 2,500/ -.

(3.) ONE Zainullah, the original defendant, was occupying a portion of this gala even prior to the date of the above assignment as licensee of Chhotu Balu and Hansu Murat. The plaintiff granted leave and licence and permission to Zainullah to continue in occupation of the portion already occupied by him in consideration of Rs. 20/- per month payable by Zainullah as licence fee to the plaintiff. In the correspondence that had taken place Zainullah falsely contended that the portion in his occupation had been obtained by him under a deed of assignment dated July 10, 1957, whereby a running business was sold as a going concern to Zainullah by Chhotu Balu. The plaintiff had duly revoked the licence granted by him to Zainullah and he accordingly claimed that Zainullah was a trespasser by reason of the termination of the licence. That was one part of the cause of action mentioned in the suit. The other part was that the assignment relied upon by Zainullah was illegal and in violation of law. For this reason, the plaintiff claimed that Zainullah was a trespasser. The plaintiff claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month aggregating to Rs. 120/- for the period April 19 to October 18, 1958. The plaintiff craved leave to file a further suit against Zainullah for damages for wrongful occupation from and after October 18, 1958. He accordingly, claimed declaration about the validity of his assignment and that Zainullah was a trespasser and for a decree in ejectment and for money decree for Rs. 120/- and a further sum of Rs. 1320/- and interest and costs.