Raj Mohan Singh, J. - (1.) Defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
(2.) Plaintiff -Wakf Dera Mahant Purshotam Dass Chela Mahant Sehdev Dass filed suit for possession on the ground that Mahant Sehdev Dass Chela Mahant amji Dass owner of Wakf Dera in terms of compromise between the parties, leased out the suit land for 99 years vide registered lease deed No. 3678 dated 23.09.1977. According to said lease deed, defendants lessee were to pay Rs. 10/ - annually to the plaintiff as lease amount. Mahant Sehdev Dass died on 21.12.1991 and after his death, Mahant Purshotam Dass became Mahant of said Dera as per custom and tradition of the plaintiff -Dera. Mehant Purshotam Dass is managing affairs of the Dera in respect of immovable and movable properties. Plaintiff alleged that defendants have violated the condition of lease deed and have made themselves liable for dispossession and cancellation of lease deed. Plaintiff sought possession of the land to be delivered to the plaintiff on the ground that defendants are not paying the lease money regularly against the valid receipt. Defendant No. 1 without any written consent of the plaintiff subjected the land to sublet in respect of 8 kanals being 160/2105 share out of the land in favour of defendant No. 5 vide registered lease deed No. 3333 dated 13.09.2000 on the basis of which mutation No. 2803 dated 17.10.2010 has been sanctioned. Plaintiff claimed that the mutation is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and plaintiff -Dera is entitled to get possession of the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Kila No. 7 which has been illegally leased out in favour of defendant No. 5. Plaintiff also alleged that the suit land was leased out for agricultural purposes but the defendants have illegally sub -letted and transferred the suit property and are changing the nature by construction of houses and colonization and defendants are not paying any rent. Therefore, defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit land by canceling the lease. The suit came to be filed with this back ground.
(3.) Defendants contested the suit by taking all customary pleas. Defendants alleged that Mahant Purshotam Dass has no right or authority to file the suit, nor he has any locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant No. 1 admitted that the suit land was given on lease for 99 years by previous Mahant Sehdev Dass. Defendant No. 2 alleged that plaintiff -Dera is the owner of suit land measuring 105 kanals 5 marlas as shown in the written statement and the said land was leased out to defendants No. 1 to 3 by registered lease deed dated 23.09.1977 upto 22.09.2076 and defendants No. 1 to 3 were put in possession of the land. Defendant No. 2 is in possession to the extent of 2/3rd share and defendant No. 1 is in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share. Defendant No. 1 had already transferred lease rights in favour of defendant No. 5 and his sons. Lease deed dated 23.09.1977 is claimed to be legal and valid. Defendant No. 5 alleged that Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar sons of Hira Lal have not been impleaded as necessary parties and also admitted factum of lease deed executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 1 being lessee to the extent of 1/3rd share has transferred lease rights qua 8 kanals 10 marlas in favour of Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar sons of defendant No. 5 from 05.12.2002 to 22.09.2076 for a lease amount of Rs. 40,000/ - through registered lease deed No. 4780 dated 05.12.2002 and the possession of the land was handed over to aforesaid Ramesh Kumar etc. Defendants alleged that they have not violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Defendant No. 1 has every right to transfer the lease rights in respect of 8 kanals of land in favour of Ramesh Kumar etc. Defence of defendant No. 1 was struck off on 07.09.2007 as he failed to file amended written statement. Replication was not filed.;