Sain Dass Farangu Ram vs Ram Saran Dass Dharam Arth Trust and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—In 1956, Sain Dass, Appellant took a shop belonging to Shri Ram Saran Dass Dharam Arth Trust, Gurdaspur, Respondent No. 1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- from Sant Ram, Respondent No. 8, who himself was a tenant of this shop under the said Trust. He continued paying rent to Respondent No. 8 till the end of December, 1956. On 1/1/1957, according to the Appellant, Amar Nath, Respondent No. 2, who was acting as the Manager of this Trust, told him that the shop belonged to the Trust and if he did not pay the rent directly to him, he would be evicted from the same. As a result, the Appellant started paying rent to Respondent No. 2 and continued doing so till 31/12/1957 and, thus, paid Rs. 264/- at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month. On 9/1/1958 the Appellant filed an application against Respondent No. 1 for fixing the fair rent of this shop. The same was fixed at Rs. 9.50 nP. in June 1958. As Respondent No. 8 did not receive any rent from the Appellant, he brought a suit on 6/1/1959 for his ejectment from the shop and for the recovery of Rs. 242/-as arrears of rent. The same was decreed on 10/6/1960 and, subsequently, the decretal amount was recovered from the Appellant.

On 18/7/1960 the Appellant brought the pre-sent suit against the Trust, Respondent No. 1, its trustes, Respondents 2 to 7, and Respondent No. 8, in this recovery of Rs. 318/-. Out of this amount Rs. 264/- had been recovered from him twice as rent--once by the Trust and for the second time by Respondent No. 8 Rs. 14/- had been paid by him in excess of the fair rent fixed for the shop and Rs. 40/- were incurred by him in defending the suit filed against him by Respondent No, 8. In this suit, the Appellant also prayed that a direction be issued to Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 18(b) of the Specific Relief Act that they should obtain the concurrence of Respondent No. 8 to the Appellant''s direct tenancy under them as he had become their tenant instead and had paid rent to them for the year ending 31/12/1957. It was alleged that Respondent No. 8 had given his tacit concurrence to this tenancy by himself not demanding any rent for this period. It was also averred that Respondent No. 2 had been colluding with Respondent No. 8 in the previous litigation between the Appellant and Respondent No. 8 and for this reason a decree for his ejectment had been passed and he had to pay the rent twice for this shop for the same period.

This suit was resisted both by Respondents Nos. 1 and 8. Respondent No. 8 denied the allegations made against him and pleaded that he had never given his consent to any direct tenancy between the Appellant and the Trust. He admitted that he had taken three shops on rent from the Trust but he had sublet them to different tenants including the Appellant, who was liable to pay rent to him alone. He was neither bound by the alleged illegal adornment by the Appellant in favour of the Trust and nor was Respondent No. 2 competent to create a tenancy in Appellant''s favour. Respondent No. 1 through its trustees, Respondents 4 and 5, also controverted the allegations made by the Appellant and stated that Respondent No. 2 was never the Manager of the Trust, though the receipt of rent for the year 1957 through him was admitted; that they never accepted the Appellant as their direct tenant; and that the Appellant was not entitled to any relief. The claim of the Appellant for obtaining-concurrence of Respondent No. 8 for the alleged tenancy created in favour of the Trust was refuted both by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 8.

On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed.

3a. The trial Judge held that Respondent No. 2 was the karkun of the Trust; that the fair rent of the shop was fixed at Rs. 9.50 nP., but Respondent No. 8 was not bound by this as he was not a party to these proceedings; that the Appellant did attorn to Respondent No. 1, but this neither put an end to his tenancy under Respondent No, 8 nor did it make, him a direct tenant under Respondent No. 1; that Respondent No. 8 had not given his tacit concurrence to the Appellant''s attornment in favour of Respondent No. 1 regarding the shop in question; that the Appellant had paid Rs. 264/- as rent for the year 1957 to Respondent No. 2 as the Manager of the Trust and he was entitled to get it back from Respondent No. 2 and the Trust, as he was not their tenant, but the tenant of Respondent No. 8; that the Appellant was not entitled to get the litigation expenses incurred by him in defending the suit filed by Respondent No. 8 for the recovery of the rent for the year 1957; and that since Respondent No. 8 Had not given his tacit concurrence to the attornment of the Appellant to Respondent No. 1, the Appellant was not entitled to the issuance of any direction to Respondent No. 1 to secure for him such a concurrence. On these findings, the trial Court granted the Appellant a decree for the recovery of Rs. 264/- with proportionate costs against Respondents 1 to 7, The prayer for other relief�s was however, rejected.

Against this decision, only the Appellant filed an appeal before the learned Senior Sub-ordinate Judge, Gurdaspur. He also came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not entitled to the relief claimed by him u/s 18(b) of the Specific Relief Act. As a result, his appeal was dismissed. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed.

The only question argued by the learned-counsel for the Appellant was that the Courts below were in error in refusing to give the relief u/s 18(b) of the Specific Relief Act, in the particular circumstances of this case. For this, he placed his reliance on the two decisions reported as AIR 1930 287 (Privy Council) and Tukaram Shamji v. Sundrabai AIR 1955 NUC (Bom) 5877.

Section 18(b) of the Specific Relief Act is in the following terms:

Section 18. Where a person contracts to sell or let certain property, having only an imperfect title thereto, the purchaser or lessee (except as otherwise provided by this Chapter) has the following rights:

**** ****

(b) where the concurrence of other persons is necessary to validate the title, and they are-bound to convey at the vendor''s or lessor''s request,, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to pro-, cure such concurrence;

****

A plain reading of this section would indicate that it applies to those cases where a person, having only an imperfect title, has contracted to sell or let certain property and in order to make the title of such purchaser or lessee valid, the concurrence of other persons is necessary and they are bound to convey the same at the request of the seller or lessor, that is against whom the seller or lessor has a legal right to enforce specific performance; then in such a case, the purchaser or the lessee may compel the seller or the lessor to procure such concurrence. In the present case, it is undisputed that, firstly, the title of Respondent No. 1 to the shop in dispute was not imperfect in any way and, secondly, Respondent No. 8 was not bound under the law to give his consent to the direct tenancy of the Appellant under the Trust. Under these circumstances, the provisions of this section are not attracted in this case. The two authorities, referred to by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, are clearly distinguishable on facts and are of no assistance to the Appellant.

The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.