SAYED BILAYATUI HASAN Vs. MOHAMMAD INAM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-85, passed by Sri N. K. Mehrotra, the then Learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in suit No. 23 of 1974, decreeing the suit for ejectment of the applicants and for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month from 13-9-71 to the date of suit with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. The opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called the plaintiff) filed the suit, giving rise to this revision for ejectment of the applicants, (hereinafter called the defendants) and for arrears of rent and damages on the ground that the plaintiff was sole owner and landlord of premises in question and deceased/defendant, Himaytul Hasan was his tenant at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The defendants fell in arrears of rent since 1958 and except for the payment of Rs. 500/- he did not pay any arrears of rent despite of service of notice of demand. The defendants also sub-let two rooms to other persons. Accordingly, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by notice dated 2-7-1974, which was served on him, but he neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises in question, hence the suit.

(2.) THE-deceased-defendant, Himayatul Hasan died before filing written statement and his legal representatives defendant No. 1/1 to 1/4 were substituted. THEy filed written statement and contested the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff was not sole owner landlord of the premises in question and after, the death of the father of the plaintiff the premises in question was inherited by the plaintiff, his sisters and mother. THErefore, the notice on behalf of the plaintiff alone was not maintainable and the plaintiff alone was also not entitled to bring the suit.

(3.) AFTER remand of the case the trial Court decided the case afresh and held that the defendant committed default in making payment of rent. That sub-letting in favour of Mohd. Umar, if any, was with the consent of the landlords and it is not actionable either under the U. P. Act 3 of 1947 or U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It further held that the plaintiff alone is owner and landlord of the property in suit and no body else. Therefore, the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The suit was legally maintainable by the plaintiff alone and the notice is also valid and it has legally determined the tenancy of the original tenant. The suit was cognizable by Small Cause Court and plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought. With these findings he decreed the suit for ejectment of defendant and for arrears of rent and damages as mentioned above.