S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No. 235 of 1987. Suit was filed by Shrimati Shyam Mani Devi and 3 others, who are respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in this writ petition. Arum Kumar Agarwal, who is respondent No. 3 in this writ petition, was impleaded as proforma defendant No. 4 in the suit. Plaintiffs and proforma defendant are successors of Sri Nath. The suit was filed against Jagdish Lal Thapar, Subhash Chandra Thapar and Satish Chandra Thapar. When this writ petition was filed Subhash Chandra Thapar had died and he was survived by petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4. During pendency of writ petition Jagdish Lal Thapar also died and was survived by legal representatives.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that their predecessor-in-interest Sri Nath, purchased the accommodation bearing No. 27 Jawahar Square, Allahabad (new number 101 Meerganj, Allahabad), through auction in execution of decree passed in Original Suit No. 344 of 1967. That auction took place on 31.5.1973 wherein Sri Nath was the highest bidder and his bid was of Rs. 1,50,000/-. That auction was confirmed on 27.8.1982 and possession was delivered to him on 20.10.1982. Property in dispute is part of the property purchased in auction by Sri Nath, It was also alleged in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month and that in spite of notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent dated 25.5.1987, neither building in dispute was vacated by the tenants nor rent was paid by them. In the notice rent was demanded from 31.5.1973. According to the plaint, Sri Nath through notice dated 10.11.1982 had intimated the tenants about the purchaser of the property.
(3.) The defendants-tenants filed written statement and pleaded that the judgment debtors of Original Suit No. 344 of 1967 was owner of the entire premises only to the extent of 6/7th and that remaining 1/7th portion was owned by Ashok Kumar son of Krishna Prasad and defendants purchased that 1/7th share from Ashok Kumar through registered sale deed dated 12.8.1971. According to the defendants the auction dated 31.5.1973 in favour of the plaintiffs was therefore valid only to the extent of 6/7th share. The defendants further claimed that as they had become owner to the extent of 1/7th share and remained tenant only to the extent of 6/7th, hence the suit was not maintainable.;