TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 of 1959, was instituted by the plaintiff for their ejectment and arrears of rent, as well as damages for unlawful use and occupation for the period ending on May 12, 1959. The suit was decreed. The first defendant in the present suit, namely, Jeet Ram, filed an appeal and prayed for the facility of paying the decretal amount in instalments. The second defendant Latif Ahmad also filed an appeal. His case was that he was not a sub-tenant but a tenant of the plaintiff and was accordingly not liable to ejectment. Jeet Ram's appeal was allowed but that of Latif Ahmad was dismissed. When the decree was put into execution, one Faiz Mohammad Khan, who has been impleaded as third defendant in the present suit, obstructed the execution of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff. He alone was thus liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, in the present suit. 3. The plaintiff-respondent and the first defendant Jeet Ram, who is defendant-respondent No. 2 in the second appeal before this Court, appealed to the District Court. Jeet Ram's appeal was dismissed but the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the trial court's decree was modified by decreeing the suit for ₹ 1,635/- and against all the defendants with proportionate costs. It may be stated here that originally the amount for which the suit was decreed by the lower appellate court was ₹ 1,935/-, but later on this figure was substituted by the figure of ₹ 1635/- by an order dated April 23, 1968. 4. Mr. H. S. Ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no evidence either to show that defendant No. 1 received any profits from either of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 during the period of his wrongful occupation after determination of the tenancy. Indeed a plea to this effect would have been contrary to the defendants' cases on other points. Under the circumstances I am bound to hold that the proper Article applicable to the instant suit was Article 120 of the old Act. The limitation prescribed was 6 years which had not expired when the new Act came into force and the suit having been filed before the expiry of the 6 years period of limitation prescribed by the old Act, it would be within time in view of the savings clause contained in Section 30(a) of the new Act, notwithstanding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
