- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal, arising out of a suit, for arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 252/-, alleged to have been due from the defendant, from 1st October, 1949 till 30th Septem ber, 1952. The arrears of rent, claim ed by the plaintiff, were in respect of the shop in dispute.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of the shop in dis pute and that the defendant was his tenant and was paying Rs. 7/- per month as rent. The defendant's tenancy was from month to month beginning from the 1st of each month and that the rent in respect of the shop in dispute was due from 1st October, 1949 till 30th September, 1952 and that the defendant failed to pay the rent for that period in spite of several demands and hence the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit on 3rd October, 1952 in the Court of Judge Small Causes. On 9th April, 1954, the learned Judge held that the suit was not cognizable by him and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plain tiff for presentation to the proper court. Against that order, the plaintiff preferred a revision in the High Court, which was dismissed on llth August, 1960. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitl ed to the benefit of Sections 14 and 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff's case further was that Bach- chu Shah and his predecessors were not Mutwalli of the shops in dispute, but were the owners of the same and that Bachchu Shah made a gift of his en tire property to Ms grandson, Karim Shah and after the death of Karim Shah, his brother Hamid Shah became the owner of the property. The plain tiff alleged that he was brought up by Hamid Shah, who had orally gifted the property, including the shop in dispute, to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the same.
(3.) THE defence was that the shop in dispute was the property of Baritala and Bachchu Shah, Karim Shah and Hamid Shah were the Mutwallis of the Waqf. According to the defence, the shop in dispute was the Waqf property, in which the plaintiff had no right or title. It was also denied that the de fendant was a tenant of the plaintiff or that the shop in dispute was orally gifted to the defendant by Hamid Shah. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.;