Vs. Bhagwan Singh  INSC 132 (18 February 1994)
M.K. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)
1994 SCC (2) 487 JT 1994 (1) 690 1994 SCALE (1)678
Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEE, J.- This appeal by special
leave is directed against the judgment and order dated July 16, 1984 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in a second appeal.
relevant for disposal of this appeal are under.
Singh (since deceased) obtained an ex parte order from the Rent Controller for
eviction of one Natha Singh, whom he claimed to be a tenant under him, from a
factory situated at Gill Road, Ludhiana and in execution thereof took
possession of the premises. Thereafter on September 8, 1973, the appellant
herein filed an application seeking an order under order XXI Rule 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) alleging that he had been illegally
dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction made against Natha Singh
and praying for restoration of his possession. He contended that Inder Singh, Bhagwan
Singh and Rattan Singh, who were the members of a joint Hindu family and were coparceners,were
owners of the factory building in question. Bhagwan Singh, as one of he members
of the said joint Hindu family, let out the factory building to him (the
appellant) on behalf of the joint Hindu family on a monthly rent of Rs 200 on July 10, 1958. Since then, the appellant
contended, he was in occupation of the disputed premises as a tenant inducted
by Bhagwan Singh on behalf of the joint Hindu family and he had been paying
rent regularly to Bhagwan Singh who had been issuing receipts. He further
contended that taking advantage of his absence Inder Singh, in conspiracy with Natha
Singh, obtained possession of the factory building in execution of the order
488 for eviction by breaking open the lock. According to the appellant he was
in possession of the disputed premises in his own right and, therefore, he
could not be dispossessed therefrom in the manner it was done. He asserted that
he was not occupying the premises on behalf of Natha Singh.
opposing the application Inder Singh and Natha Singh pleaded that the disputed
factory building had since been razed to the ground and as such the application
seeking order under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code was not maintainable. They
also denied that the appellant was in possession of the disputed premises in
his own right.
to them Bhagwan Singh had no right whatsoever to induct the appellant into the
premises in dispute, particularly, in view of the fact that it was a self-
acquired property of Inder Singh. They further averred that the relationship
between Inder Singh and Bhagwan Singh was strained and the appellant in
connivance with Bhagwan Singh had filed the application. Lastly, they contended
that the possession of the premises had been taken rightfully in execution of a
decree passed against Natha Singh.
consideration of the evidence and other materials brought on record the Senior
Sub-Judge, Ludhiana held that Inder Singh, Bhagwan
Singh and Rattan Singh were members of a joint Hindu family and that the
disputed factory belonged to the family. The Court next found that Bhagwan
Singh had no authority to let out the premises to the appellant and that Bhagwan
Singh did not let out the premises to him. The Judge lastly found that the
appellant was holding the property on behalf of Natha Singh as his tenant and
not in his own right. On such findings the Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the
application filed by the appellant.
thereby the appellant filed an appeal which was heard and allowed by the
Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The
first Appellate Court held that the appellant was a tenant under Bhagwan Singh,
and not under Natha Singh and consequently he could not be evicted on the basis
of a decree passed against Natha Singh.
the judgment and order of the first appellate court, Bhagwan Singh preferred a
second appeal in the High Court. The High Court set aside the judgment and
order of the first appellate court and restored those of the Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana
on the ground that Bhagwan Singh was not competent to let out the disputed
premises and that in absence of any evidence on record it could not be said
that the appellant was occupying the premises under Bhagwan Singh. On the
contrary, the High Court observed, the rent note executed by the appellant in favour
of Natha Singh clearly proved that he was occupying the premises as a sub-
tenant under Natha Singh against whom the ejectment order was obtained by Inder
Singh. Hence this appeal.
was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court ought to have held
that the rent note executed by the appellant was obtained by fraud, undue influence
and coercion and as such no reliance could be placed thereupon.
contention of the appellant is to be stated only to be rejected having regard
to the fact that no such case was made out by the appellant, either in his
application seeking order under Order XXI Rule 100 of the ode or in his
deposition before the Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana.
no other point was raised in support of the appeal and as all the findings
recorded by the High Court are of facts, we do not find any merit in his
appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to