LALA GHANSHYAM DASS Vs. IST A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pamarty Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) This petition by the landlord is directed against a revisional order dated 22.5.1996 setting aside the eviction order of the trial court and dismissing Petitioner's suit for eviction.

(3.) Necessary facts, shorn of details, for the decision of this petition, are that the Petitioner landlord instituted a S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1991 against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the allegation that Respondent No. 2 was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 37.50 p. per month and apart from being a defaulter had also sub-let it to his brother Respondent No. 3 without the consent in writing of the landlord and therefore was liable for eviction in view of Section 20(2)(e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The tenant Respondent contested the suit inter alia on the ground that a Hindu Undivided Family was the tenant of which both the Respondents were its member but in 1956 the Respondent No. 2 started another business in another shop leaving Respondent No. 3 to carry on the original business, thus there was no sub-tenancy and there was in fact no default in payment of rent.