- (1.)S. H. A. Raza, J. Respondent No. 3 Sikander Ali filed a suit bearing No. 43 of 1993 in the month of January, 1993 against two persons, namely, Begum Sayeeda Wajahat H :sain and Mr. Abdullah alias Waliullah claiming possession and recoveryof Rs. 5,42,819.
(2.)INITIALLY, the contention of the plaintiff in that suit was that he was the tenant of Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain over a portion of land in which there were certain constructions ; but he was wrongly dispossessed on 29th August, 1994 with the collusion of the defendants of the suit who got the son of plaintiff arrested in a criminal case and forcibly took over the possession of the shop.
The plaintiff who was an aged man prayed for the recovery of possession of the premises in suit and paid Court fee of Rs. 1,200 on the annual rental value of the premises in which he claimed to be a tenant. He also prayed for passing of a decree for recovery of movables specified in Schedule and in the alternative its price worth Rs. 3,00,000. 00 on which he paid Court-fee of Rs. 22,987. 50. He also claimed damages (mesne profits) from 2-6-92 to 20-1-93 amounting to Rs. 23,693. 00 on which he paid Court-fee of Rs. 2,207. 50 paisa. Thereafter drastic amendments were made in the plaint as the plaintiff came to know lateron when an objection was filed on behalf of defendants in the said suit against the grant of an injunction passed by the trial Court that Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain has transferred the property in favour of the petitioner.

As stated in foregoing paragraph an injunction was granted by the trial Court restraining Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain and Mr. Abdullah alias Waliullah, restraining them from raising any construction over the said premises. Thereafter counter-affidavit was filed from which it transpired that the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter amendment application was preferred arraying the petitioner as one of the defendants and certain other pleas were also raised. The amendment application was allowed.

(3.)PLAINTIFF asserted in the amended plaint that, he had never seen the face of even any of the Directors of M/s. Gemini Continental (P) Ltd. the petitioner had never met with any of its official. In fact, the petitioner was not aware about the said Company nor he did know about purchase of the suit property by the said company as there had never been any occasion for the plaintiff to enter into any transaction with the said Company. It was asserted in the amended plaint that the plaintiff never surrendered his tenancy. The case of the plaintiff thus appears to be is that the petitioner who had purchased the property stepped into the shoes of Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain being the landlord and hence the plaintiff became the tenant of petitioner, but the plaintiff was dispossessed from the premises without due process of law.
Reliance was placed on an agreement alleged to be executed by the plaintiff, according to which the plaintiff alleged to have surrendered the tenancy which fact had been refuted by the plaintiff.