- (1.) This is an application for placing on record rent receipts alleged to have been paid by the tenant in favour of the mortgagee, I do not think it is necessary for consideration at the stage of civil revision petition. There is no justification for non-filing of these documents before the Rent Controller itself. If the amounts are said to represent payments made subsequent to the filing of the petition, they become irrelevant. In either case documents are not required to be received. Civil Revision No. 1875 of 1987 I. The facts that give rise to dispute 1. The civil revision is at the instance of the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed by the appellate Court in reversal of the judgment of the Rent Controller. Before the Rent Controller, the petition had been filed by purchasers of equity of redemption, who claimed that the tenant under the mortgagee had attorned the tenancy in their favour in a compromise entered into between them and the tenant. In the suit for redemption filed against the mortgagee and the tenants of the mortgagee, the property was in respect of all the property that had been purchased by them which included the shop in the possession of the tenant as well. A few more facts would be necessary to set the case in its proper perspective. The property originally belonged to Gokal Chand, Kishori Lal, Kasturi Lal, Kapuri Lal and Tarsem Lal. They had unsufructuary mortgaged the property to Amar Nath and Dev Gupt for a period of 5 years to secure a loan of Rs. 40,000/-. The original owners, who were the mortgagors, had sold the property to the landlords, who upon such purchase filed a suit for redemption making the mortgagees, mortgagors and the respective tenants as defendants in suit. The tenant, who is in revision petition before this Court, was 6th defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was brought about between the landlords and the tenant when a rent note was prepared on 05.03.1980. Statements of the parties, namely of Balbir Singh, representing the landlords and Sohan Lal, being the tenant, were recorded by the Court. In terms of the rent note and the statement recorded, the tenant-6th defendant was removed from array of parties. The trial progressed to adjudicate on the landlord's right of redemption sought through their plaint. A preliminary decree had been passed by the trial Court on 24.07.1980 where the contest was essentially between the landlords and some other tenants, who had been resisting the action for redemption. In the manner of provision for the preliminary decree, the Court held that the mortgage with the defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- was liable to be redeemed and the period of redemption having commenced after 23.02.1977, the plaintiff would be entitled to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the mortgagee on or before 30.09.1980, failing which, the plaintiff's suit would stand dismissed with costs. It is on the basis of the rent note that the landlords obtained and on the assertion that the amount as directed by the decree had been actually deposited that the landlords sought for action for eviction against the tenant on two grounds: (i) the tenant, who had undertaken to treat them as landlords and pay a rent of Rs. 130/- per month did not pay the rent and has thus rendered himself liable for eviction; (ii) the tenant, who had conceded to the landlords' status as such was however, denying the title and consequently forfeited the rights as tenant making himself liable for eviction on that ground as well. II. The issue: whether there existed a subsisting jural relationship of tenancy between parties
(2.) To the petition filed by the landlords, the contest by the tenant was that the rent note executed on 05.03.1980 as a measure of compromise during the pendency of suit for redemption was provisional and was intended to take effect only when the landlords as plaintiffs were took possession. Pursuant to the decree that was to be passed in the redemption suit, so long as the possession was not taken by the passing of final decree, the tenant could not be treated to be a tenant under the landlords, who claimed as purchasers of equity of redemption, but the tenant would continue to be a tenant only under the mortgagee against whom there had not yet been a final decree for redemption delivering the property to the purchasers. Responding to the statement made before Court on the basis of which the tenant was exonerated through suit, the contention was that the acceptance of the tenant of the landlords' status must be understood in the context of what would enure to the landlord on securing actual possession through Court on the passing of final decree and that is how he understood himself when he gave a recorded statement in Court. III. Examination of the statements by tenant and "landlord"
(3.) The relevant portions of the rent note dated 05.03.1980 and the respective statements of the parties before the tenant was removed from the array of parties, would require to be reproduced for coming to grips with the issues raised in this case:- I, Sohan Lal son of Kundan Lal son of Kalu Ram, am owner of shop and firm Sohan Lal and sons situated at Sadar Bazar, Ahmadgarh. Sh. Balbir Singh, Ajit Singh and Malkiat Singh sons of Didar Singh son of Roor Singh, residents of Khera, Tehsil and District Ludhiana are owners of a shop situated at Sadar Bazar, Mandi Ahmadgarh on which two Chaubaras, four stair cases and a toilet have been constructed and which is bounded as under:- Now I have taken both the Chaubaras of upper floor together with stair cases and toilet from the owners of shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month half of which comes to Rs. 65/-. At present a case with regard to redemption of shop and Chaubaras is pending, therefore the rent would start from the date of taking possession by me after decision of this case and after redemption of above said shop and Chaubaras. After getting the possession, I would make the payment of rent every month in advance. During the period of tenancy, I would not sublet the abovesaid Chaubaras to any other person. I would not change its shape. I would properly maintain it and in case I do not comply with these conditions, I would be liable to be evicted. I would not dismantle the Chaubaras. Therefore, this rent note has been got scribed for a period, of six months so that it may serve as an authority at the time of need. (underlining mine) Statement of Ajit Singh and Malkiat Singh, Plaintiffs and Teja Singh, Balbir Singh, Plaintiff (On S.A.) and the counsel for the Plaintiffs. Stated that the chaubaras above the shop in dispute have been given on rent to Sohan Lal @ Rs. 130/- per month. This Sohan Lal has executed a rent deed in our favour. We do not claim any relief against this Sohan Lal, Defendant. We accept him as our tenant. The name of Sohan Lal, Defendant may be deleted. Power of Attorney is Exhibit P.X. IV. Basis of findings by Courts below;