Decided on October 11,1972



- (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against an order dated August 19, 1970, whereby the learned Judge rejected an application filed by those defendants on July 8, 1970. That application sought to raise a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to entertain the suit as was filed on the plea that it involved a question of title and the question as to who is the landlord of the defendants. Though, admittedly no specific issue was drawn, the learned Judge while rejecting the said application, pointed out that the suit was tenable in that Court. In sum, the Court held that the suit was an ejectment suit based upon the cause of action that arises usually between the landlord and the tenant and, therefore, it has the jurisdiction to try the same.
(2.) THE pleadings of the parties may be noticed before the contentions in this revision application are appreciated. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, claiming as trustees of a private trust by name "krishnabai Motilal Family Trust. " filed a suit as landlords. The plaint alleges that the defendant No. 1 was the monthly tenant and having obtained regularly the permission from the Rent Controller, the tenancy was duly determined. It is said that the other two defendants, i. e. , the present applicants, in this revision are either licensees or sub-lessees of the defendant No. 1. It was, therefore, claimed that a decree for possession be passed in favour of the plaintiffs along with usual reliefs.
(3.) TO this the main contesting defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are in actual possession have raised the contest. The defendant No. 1, who is admittedly the tenant, has by his written statement, produced at Ex. 8, stated that he is the tenant from the plaintiffs and that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were inducted by him as his sub-lessees. The present applicants-defendants Nos. 2 and 3 - have raised several contentions including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The main plea for the purposes of this challenge is that the plaintiffs are neither the landlords nor the owners. It is however, not disputed that the defendant No. 1 is the person who inducted them in these premises. What is being said as a matter of plea is that the defendant No. 1 is the tenant of a trust known as "sukhanand Gurmukhram Trust" and some reference is also made to litigation that is going on relating to this property under the aegis of that trust. In other words, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, admitting that they are in possession of the property properly inducted by the defendant No. 1, are setting up a title to the suit property in a third party. They are also claiming that third party is the landlord of the defendant No. 1.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.