PANNA LAL AND OTHERS Vs. GYANESHWAR NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Defendants. The first Appellant, Panna Lal, is tenant -in -chief of the premises in suit, while the second Appellant is his son. The remaining Appellants are subtenants of the first Appellant. Previously Kedar Nath, father of the Plaintiff was the landlord. It is alleged that by a registered family arrangement made in 1960 -61, the house in suit was allotted to his minor son, Gyaneshwar Nath Gupta, Plaintiff Respondent. Nevertheless Kedar Nath continued to remain his guardian and the present suit was also filed by the Plaintiff on 24 -2 -1967, under the guardianship of his father Kedar Nath, who was also examined as a witness for the Plaintiff on 24 -9 -1967. Kedar Nath, however, died during the pendency of the suit some time before 6 -5 -1968.

(2.) THE first and second Appellants carry on business in a portion of the disputed house. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is that the first Appellant had sublet the remaining portion of the house in suit to Appellants Nos. 3 to 5 separately without the consent of the landlord.

(3.) ON 13 -1 -1966 the first Appellant (Panna Lal) sent a reply repudiating the Plaintiff's allegation of illegal sub -letting. It is noteworthy that in -spite of the service of the aforesaid notice of termination of tenancy, the Plaintiff accepted 'rent' from the first Appellant month after month (commencing Paush Sudi 15 to Magh Sudi 14 Samvat 2023) at the rate of Rs. 110/ - per month and granted 13 receipts to Panna Lal, in each one of which it was specifically written that it was 'kiraya' (rent) for such and such month.