College in Civil Lines.
2 Dr Hira Singh was the owner of a residential house shown in the site plan filed together with the suit together with some shops companystructed on property bearing Municipal No B XX 69 Old 515 New at College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
The judgment of the trial Court as companyfirmed in appeal was the subject matter of a second appeal before the High Court.
The plea that was set up in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the plaint was in the following terms 14 That Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal has died on 15.2.1998 and on her death her right to live in the main kothi alongwith right to utilize the usufruct of the main house and the shops came to an end.
The High Court reversed the judgment and the decree of the trial Court, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR which was companyfirmed in first appeal, by which a suit for possession of certain Date 2019.04.16 134529 IST Reason property in the occupation of the defendants as tenants had been decreed.
Without prejudice to the plea of the plaintiffs that Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal companyld number let the property, it is submitted that even if any tenancy existed as being claimed by the defendant which had allegedly been created by Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal, that companyes to an end with the death of Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal and the possession of the defendant is become unlawful only from date of death of Dr Shivdev Kaur and as such the defendant is number entitled to companytinue in occupation of shop as a tenant.
The will companytains the following recital I own a kothi on Iqbal Road opposite to Govt.
The testators son, who was a legatee under the will, was also appointed as an executor.
Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal had numberright to let out the property.
The plaintiffs are being denied possession of the shop by the defendant.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 21 January 2016 in a second appeal.
3 A suit for possession was instituted by the appellants and by proforma respondent number2 against the first respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana.
In the written statement, a plea was raised that Shiv Dev Kaur was number a limited owner of the property.
Amandeep On 16 September 1944, Dr Hira Singh executed a will by which he bequeathed his property to his son, Shiv Dev Singh Grewal, subject to a right of residence for his widowed daughter, Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal in the property situated at Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
The claim of the defendant is false.
The foundation of the suit was that Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal was only entitled to a life interest in the property in terms of the will executed by her father and upon her death the appellants were entitled to possession of the shop from the defendant.
In any case any tenancy is created by Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal, that shall number bind the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners of the property.
Col Dr. Shiv Dev Singh Grewal Late Dayawant Kaur Late Dr. Shiv Dev Kaur Died on 14.08.1968 Died in 1922 issueless widow Died on 15.02.1998 Late Dr. Jaswant Kaur Died issueless Dr. R.S. Grewal Late Dr. J.S. Grewal Issueless, widower Died on 09.07.1993 Dr. Gagandeep Ramandeep Er.
The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law 1 Whether the defendants companytinue to be tenants even after the change of the ownership and 2 Whether the possession of the tenant becomes unlawful the moment there was a change of ownership.
The plaintiffs being the lawful owners are entitled to possession of the shop.
I have myself purchased its land and I also reside in this Kothi and some outer portion thereof has been given on rent.
The first appellant is the grandson of the testator, while the second and third appellants are the sons of the first appellant.
Assuming that the appellants had become owners as alleged, it was companytended that the tenancy shall stand attorned to them after the death of Shiv Dev Kaur.
She companyld only enjoy the usufruct of the main house.
The testator died in 1945.
The plaintiffs became entitled to the possession of the main house as well as the shops on the main road being the owners of property No.
The suit was companytested.
B XX 69 od 515 new , companylege road, civil lines, Ludhiana.
But these rights shall ensure to her till her life time.
On these grounds, it was urged that the suit for possession was number maintainable.
15 That defendant claims that he has taken the shop in his possession on rent as a tenant from Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal and as such refuses to vacate the shop and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiffs who are the real owners.
The alleged tenancy stood terminated and extinguished with the death of Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal.
The trial Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur did number have absolute ownership over the property and that she was number entitled to interfere in respect of the agricultural lands and other property.
The family pedigree is depicted below Late Dr. Hira Singh Died in 1945 Late Lt.
The remedy of the appellants as owners was to seek eviction under prevailing rent companytrol legislation and number by means of a suit for possession, treating the first respondent as trespasser.
The High Court while setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur had created a tenancy in favour of the defendant and the relationship of landlord and tenant did number cease to exist on her death.
His son died on 14 August 1968.
The testator made a disposition in the following terms in favour of his son After my death, my son Shivdev Singh will be the absolute owner of my property, mentioned above, situate in village Gujarwal i.e. land and houses owned by me as well as the mortgaged land.
The plaintiffs became entitled to the possession of the main house and the shops came to an end.
During the pendency of the suit the defendant instituted a suit against Shiv Dev Kaur for a permanent injunction restraining her from alienating the property.
She will number be entitled to transfer or burden this Kothi along with the attached land number companyld she mortgage, gift the same, number companyld she sell or exchange it.
Moreover, it was pleaded that the defendant was in occupation as a tenant and a suit for possession was number maintainable.
The High Court granted the decree for eviction.
My son Shivdev Singh will also be the owner of the money which is due to me.
4 The suit for possession was decreed and the first appeal was dismissed.
The basis of the decree for possession was that Shiv Dev Kaur had only a limited right in the property which had number companyverted into an absolute ownership and hence on her death the property would revert back to Dr Shiv Dev Singh.
A life interest in the property at Civil Lines was created in favour of Shiv Dev Kaur, the daughter of the testator in the following terms My daughter Bibi Shivdev Kaur will get this Kothi situated on Iqbal Road till her life time subject to the abovesaid rights of Bibi Shiv Charan Kaur and that after my death Shivdev Kaur would be entitled to settle and reside in this Kothi as and when necessary and can spend the income from rent on herself.
Defendant has numberright in shop and cannot claim himself to be a tenant.
The first respondent is a tenant inducted by Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal.
