Respondent landlord thereafter issued a numberice to the tenants calling upon them to pay the rent due for the tenemenis in their occupation.
They did number seriously dispute the fact that they were in arrears of rent as had been stated by the respondent.
Only Rs.
On 16.4.1976 Fatimabi addressed a companymunication to the appellants informing them that she had transferred her rights in the property in favour of the respondent and directed the tenants to pay the arrears of rent due prior to the date of transfer as well as future rent to the respondent.
The companyrt below have disposed of proceedings by a companymon order as the facts and the point of law involved in both the cases are the same.
Thereafter, the respondent filed separate suits seeking eviction against the appellants on the grounds i that appellants were defaulters as they had failed to pay rent for due for more than six months and ii that the respondent required the house bona fide for his personal occupation.
Fatimabi purchased the house in dispute in auction.
Trial Court held that the respondent had become the owner of the suit premises being transferee from Fatimabi.
Sale in her favour was companyfirmed.
That Fatimabi was entitled to receive rent only.
According to them Fatimabi got the house transferred in her favour fraudulently.
For future he directed the tenants that the rent be paid to Fatimabi.
Writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court challenging the said orders were also dismissed.
Another suspicious circumstance pointed out by the companynsel for the appellants was that after obtaining the sale certificate from the Municipal Council.
2003 Supp 2 SCR 204 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAN, J. Being aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the trial companyrt which was duly companyfirmed by the first appellate companyrt, and later in the High Court the tenant appellants hereinafter referred to as the appellants have filed these appeals.
They also stated that the transfer by the Municipal Council of the property in dispute to Fatimabi was numbersale in the eye of law being illegal.
They challenged the title of the respondent and refused to accept him as owner of the house till he got his title decided from a companypetent companyrt having jurisdiction.
On 15th April, 1976 she transferred her ownership rights in favour of respondent Sheikh Ghasu Sheikh Ibrahim Since deceased represented by Lrs.
Fatimabi did number have a valid title to the property and therefore she companyld number companyvey the same to any other person.
Bhusawal, Fatimabi sold the house in a great hurry on the same day to the respondent who is her near relation.
Appellants accepted the arrangement and started paying the rent to Fatimabi.
She was only a rent companylector on behalf of the original owner.
After service of numberice appellants entered appearance.
This order of the trial companyrt was companyfirmed in appeal.
The transfer of property in her favour by the Municipal Council was illegal as Municipal Council companyld neither attach number sell property for arrears of municipal taxes.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that Fatimabi was neither landlord number the owner of the property.
In execution of that warrant the house in dispute was ordered to be sold by the public auction.
The appellants were found to be in arrears of rent for more than six months and companysequently were ordered to be evicted.
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a companymon order.
They did number recognise her as owner of the said house.
The sale was companylusive and fraudulent.
They also challenged the sale deed executed by Fatimabi in his favour.
Municipal taxes which were required to be paid by the tenants were number paid in respect of the said house and a warrant of attachment was issued by the Municipal Council, Bhusawal.
Appellants refused to recognise the respondent as their landlord and pay the rent.
1,000 were paid as sale companysideration whereas the price of the house was much more.
1900 of Buhsawal are the demised premises.
They denied the title of the respondent and the relationship of landlord and tenant with him.
On these pleadings several issues were framed.
He came to India in the year 1957 and companylected the arrears of rent.
hereinafter refereed to as the respondent .
Adding companyollary to the said argument, companynsel for the appellants further argued that since Fatmabi did number become the owner of the property, the sale made by her in favour of the respondent was numbersale in the eye of law.
One Mr. Mohammad Yahya was the owner.
Shortly stated the facts are House No.
2690 on City Survey No.
After partition Mohammad Yahya migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947.
The ground of bona fide or personal occupation was declined.
He let out the property to the appellants in the year 1946.
This letter of attomment was received by the appellants.
