JAGJOT SINGH Vs. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD SAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of an application C.M. 415/72 made by the plaintiff Hafiz Mohd. Said under Order 22, Rules 4 and 11 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for an order that the Regular First Appeal No. 135-D of 1960 has abated and it be dismissed as not competent. The relevant facts for the decision of the application are: the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants Jagjot Singh and 23 others for their ejectment from the premises described as Municipal No. X/1337 known as "National Cloth Market" situate at Bazar Chitii Qabar, Ward No. X, Delhi. The suit was founded on the allegations that the plaintiff had by an agreement dated 8th June, 1951 leased out to defendants No. 1 and 2, 17 shops known as "National Cloth Market" at a rent of Rs. 300.00 per month for a period of three years. Defendants I and 2 were given permission to sublet part of the premises to other cloth merchants, that defendants no. I and 2 had sublet the premises to the tenants detailed in column 3 of Schedule A annexed to the plaint with the permission of the plaintiff, that d efendants no. 1 and 2 later without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff replaced the said sub-tenants by defendants 3-24. The plai ntiff claimed eviction of the defendants on the grounds, namely, (a) that defendants I and 2 had committed breach of the terms of lease and had defaulted in paying the rent; (b) that defendants I and 2 had sublet the premises to defendants 3 to 24 without any legal authority; (c) that the period of lease had expired on 31st May, 1954; and (d) t hat the demised premises are wholly in occupation of sub-tenants defendants 3 to 24. The plaintiff stated in para 19 of the plaint that defendants 3 to 24 are sub-tenants and, therefore, he has made them party to the suit. The plaintiff further claimed a sum of Rs. 62CO.00 as arrears of rent and Rs. 1700.00 on account of damage from defendants, 1 and 2.

(2.) The suit was only contested by defendants I and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 denied their liability to eviction on the grounds pleaded. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the sub-tenants were inducted with the express permission of the plaintiff and their possession of the demised premises as sub-tenants is lawful. The contesting defendants further pleaded that that plaintiff had stopped the sub-tenants from paying the rent to them and accordingly their liability to pay the rent to the plaintiff ceased altogether under the principles of suspension of rent.

(3.) The trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties framed a number of issues. The trial Judge found:-