9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Commencement date of the tenancy 2. Validity of the notice of ejectment 3. Maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff Issue 1: Commencement date of the tenancy The case involved a dispute regarding the date from which the tenancy of the defendants commenced. The plaintiff claimed the tenancy started on January 1, 1939, while the defendants argued it began on March 25, 1938. The trial court found that an unregistered agreement (Ex. 3) regarding rent was inadmissible as evidence. The President of the Dharmada Committee testified that the defendants agreed to pay rent from January 1939, but the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The lower courts accepted this finding as a fact, and it was held that the defendants admitted liability for rent from January 1939. Additionally, even if Ex. 3 was excluded, the defendants were considered tenants at will, allowing for a demand for possession without the need for a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Issue 2: Validity of the notice of ejectment The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not follow the procedure laid down by Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the sale in favor of the plaintiff vested him with the right to maintain the suit. The plaintiff did not claim to be authorized by the Dharmada Committee but acted as a benamidar. Legal precedents were cited to establish that a benamidar, as a trustee for the beneficiary, has the right to sue for possession against a trespasser. The courts below correctly held that the plaintiff, as a benamidar, was entitled to maintain the suit without the need for permission under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. Issue 3: Maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff The judgment emphasized the legal position of a benamidar, stating that the benamidar represents the real owner and acts as a trustee for them. The plaintiff, in this case, sued in his own right as a benamidar, and his right to maintain the action was legally established. The court rejected the argument that a benamidar must obtain court permission under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring a suit for ejectment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions, and costs were awarded against the appellant. This judgment clarifies the legal principles surrounding tenancy commencement dates, the rights of a benamidar to maintain a suit, and the validity of notices of ejectment in tenancy disputes.
|
