Mohammad Sultan And Anr. vs Anwar Anees And Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 464 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

(1) On 18.12.1996, this Court had directed default notice to be issued to the Counsel for the petitioner and notice of actual date be given to the respondent for 26.2.1997. Counsel for the parties were duly served. The revision petitions had been appearing in the list of regular items from 21.4.1997. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner or respondent. I have, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the petitions on the basis of available record.

(2) Revision Petition No. 439/90 has been filed against the common judgment dated 16.1.1990, passed by Sh. Kuldip Singh, the then Judge, Small Causes Court. By the said judgment, learned Judge decided two suits for recovery filed by the respondent. The suits were filed to recover the rent for the period September, 1986 to August, 1989. The respondent claiming to be the owner/landlord filed the said suits for recovery of rent against the petitioners, herein. Suit No. 725/89 was filed against one Shamshuddin, petitioner in Civil Revision No. 440/90, while Suit No. 726/89 was filed against Mohd. Sultan, petitioner in Civil Revision No. 439/90.

(3) The rent was claimed as due from September, 1986 till August, 1989, in both the suits. The rate of rent in the case of Shamshuddin was Rs. 20.00 p.m. and in the case of Mohd. Sultan, it was Rs. 15.00 p.m. The respondents claimed that they had purchased the property by a registered sale deed from Mst. Khatija Begum.

(4) The case of the petitioners before the Small Causes Court was that they had been inducted as tenants by one Mohd. Yasin and they had been paying rent to the said Mohd. Yasin and thereafter to his legal representative. Anwar Ahmed. Significantly, the petitioner had also admitted that they had been taking a receipt also from Mst. Khatija Begum, from whom the respondent claimed to have purchased the property. The case of the petitioners' was that Mst. Khatija Begum had received the rent as a legal representative of Mohd. Yasin. The learned Small Causes Court took note of an earlier judgment given by Sh. M.S. Rohilla, the then Judge of Small Causes Court dated 1.8.1987, between the parties. In that case also petitioners had challenged the ownership and the right of the present respondents to recover rent from them. The said contention was negatived.

(5) Against the judgment dated 1.8.1987, passed by Sh. M.S. Rohilla, the present petitioners had preferred Civil Revision Nos. 752/87 & 754/87. The said revision petitions had been dismissed on 22.2.1994.

(6) The said judgment of Sh. M.S. Rohilla had referred to a decree passed in terms of an award holding that the property in dispute had been gifted away by Mst. Rabia Begum and Mst. Ashraf Begum to Mst. Khatija Begum, who became the absolute owner since 13.1.1950. It was this very Khatija Begum, who had sold the property to the respondent by a registered sale deed. The Court had also taken note of the petitioner's admission of having paid rent to Khatya Begum as well. The respondent had also produced the receipts and counter foils that had been issued by Khatya Begum and on her behalf by others.

(7) The Small Causes Judge by the impugned judgment decreed the rent claimed for the period from August, 1988 to 1989, and disallowed the claim from September, 1986 till July, 1988. This was done since an earlier suit filed by the respondent had been dismissed in default and the application for its restoration met the same fate. The petitioners in the revision petition have questioned the finding that the petitioner was a tenant under Mst. Khatya Begum. Petitioner has also assailed the reliance on the earlier judgment dated 1.1.1987 of Sh. M.S. Rohilla.

(8) Considering the material placed on record and, particularly, the purchase of property from Khatija Begum by the respondent, by a registered sale deed, the rent receipts that had been obtained by the petitioners from Mst. Khatija Begum, from whom the respondents purchased the property as well as the decree in terms of the award, holding that the property in dispute was gifted by Ms. Rabiya and Ms. Asharfi Begum to Mst. Khatija Begum, the findings reached by Sh. M.S. Rohilla, Judge, Small Causes Court, in his judgment dated 1.8.1987 and m the impugned order are not assailable. I find no infirmity or error warranting inference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petitions have no merit and are dismissed.