A L BOSE Vs. SYED NAYYAR ABBAS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-8-7
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on August 31,1965

A.L.BOSE Appellant
VERSUS
SYED NAYYAR ABBAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRAYAG SONAR VS. MOTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANISH VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH CHOPRA VS. NARESH MOHAN VERMA & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-564] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendants second appeal arising out of it suit instituted by the respondent for arrears of rent and ejectment.
(2.)THE dispute in this case relates to a ball portion of the house specified at the foot of the plaint. THE house was owned by the appellant's father who executed a will in 1941 bequeathing the house in question in equal shares to the appellant and to her brother Wilmol Daniels. On 13th March, 1944. Wilmot Daniels sold his half share in the house to one Afsar Regum and on the same date he executed a rent note in her favour under which he was allowed to continue in possession on payment of Rs. 15/- per month as rent. In January, 1956 Afsar Begum sold the same to the respondent. Soon after his purchase, he gave a notice dated 17th January, 1956, to Wilmot Daniels demanding Rs. 540/- on account of arrears of rent and adding that in case of default in the payment of the amount demanded the addressee would be liable for ejectment. THEreafter on 30th January, 1956, the respondent gave another notice to Wilmot Daniels purporting to be one under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring him to vacate the disputed accommodation by 15th February, 1956. On 19th February, 1956 the respondent gave a third notice to Wilmot Daniels but there is no evidence to show as to what the contents of that notice were.
It is thereafter that the suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted for arrears of rent and ejectment against Wilmot Daniels During the pendency of that suit Wilmot Daniels died and was substituted by his sister the present appellant despite some contest put by her that she did not claim under Wilmot Daniels and had a paramount title under the will to the disputed house.

The claim was contested on various pleas including the question of title. The plea regarding title was that Wilmot Daniels held only life estate under the will executed by his father and as such whatever was transferred by him under the sale deed relied on by the respondent came to an end with his death. It was further pleaded in defence that the claim for ejectment was bad in so far as the tenancy on which the suit was based had not been determined according to law.

(3.)THE trial Court went into the question of title and found in favour of the respondent. It further held in favour of the respondent regarding his claim for arrears of rent. On the question whether the tenancy had been determined according to law it found in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, while dismissing the suit for ejectment it decreed the claim of the respondent for joint possession besides giving him a decree for arrears of rent Aggrieved by this decree the present appellant went in appeal before the District Judge THE appeal was heard by the Civil Judge Lucknow who affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal It is in these circumstances that the defendant has come up in second appeal before this Court.
The plaintiff-respondent has filed a cross objection against the finding of the two Courts below on the question whether the tenancy has been determined according to law.

;


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