- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the two courts below committed error of law in drawing inference and recorded the finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit property was purchased by the defendant from Rahim Khan for which an agreement to sale was executed on 14.3.1979. The sale price was fixed Rs.30,000/- and defendant paid Rs.500/- to Rahim Khan, therefore, the appellant is living in the suit premises in his own right. So far as the rent deed produced by the plaintiff is concerned, admittedly, the property was not let-out on the said date given in the rent deed. It is also submitted that in view of vacillating stand of plaintiff about the letting-out of the property, it is clear that false case of tenancy has been concocted. It is also submitted that plaintiff came with specific plea that the suit property was given by will to them but the said will was not produced in the Court. It is also submitted that for recovery of possession of wakf property from the tenant, the property the Wakf Board was necessary party.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff proved the rent deed and that finding of fact has been recorded by the two courts below concurrently in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, merely on this basis of this fact, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the property from the defendant - tenant. As in view of the above, tenant cannot dispute the title of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the title of the suit property was not relevant and could not have been examined in proceedings initiated for eviction of the tenant under the provisions of Rent Act and the plaintiff may not have been allowed to prove his title to the property by the Court.;