In execution of the said decrees the two portions of the house were sold and were purchased by Ram Nath.
The High Court has further found that the respondent was number a party to the suit filed by the appellant and in her numberice dated July 21, 1966 she did number mention that the suit for declaration had been decreed in her favour and that the respondent companyld number know that any decree had been passed, under which the appellant had been declared to be the owner of the premises and that on the other hand the respondent knew that a decree had been passed against him on July 30, 1966 in the suit filed by Ram Nath.
The case of the respondent was that Ram Nath, the auction purchaser, had filed a suit against him claiming the rent of the premises in his occupation and that he received the summons of the said suit in March 1965.
The said suit was decreed by the appellate Court on July 4, 1966.
The auction purchaser obtained possession of the two portions of the house on July 7, 1962 and September 7, 1963.
The respondent states that though he companytested the said suit it was decreed against him and the said decree was maintained in appeal filed by the respondent which was decided on July 30, 1966.
The High Court has held that as a result of the dismissal of her objections filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. the title of the appellant in the property came under a cloud and the cloud over her title was cleared only when her suit for declaration was decreed by the District Judge,Jhansi on July 4, 1966.
The appellant, thereafter, served a numberice dated July 21,1966 on the respondent demanding rent from March 1,1965 and on his failure to pay the rent as demanded she filed the suit giving rise to this appeal.
But on appeal, the said decree was set aside by the District Judge, Jhansi and the suit was dismissed.
The respondent is said to have been inducted as a tenant by the appellant in her portion of the house some time in January 1962.
This appeal by special leave arises out of suit for eviction filed by the appellant against the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 3 of the U.P. Temp.
The suit was decreed by the trial Court.
The appellant claims that she is the owner of half share in that house.
910/55 against Kanhaiya Lal, the.husband of the appellant, and Decree No.
The said decree of the District Judge, Jhansi has been affirmed in second appeal by the High Court of Allahabad by judgment and decree dated September 20,1978.
Gossianpura, at Jhansi is said to have been purchased by the appellant and her step son Babu Lal on June 27, 1950.
The appellant appears to have filed objections against the sale of her share in the house in execution of the decree passed against her husband, Kanhaiya Lal, but the said objections were dismissed and thereafter, she filed a regular suit for declaration of her title in respect of half portion of the house.
449 of 1960 against Babu Lal, the step son of the appellant from the Court of Munsif, Jhansi.
52 in Moh.
One Ram Nath had obtained two decrees, Decree No.
The facts, in brief, are as follows House No.
Control of Rent and Eviction Act III of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
