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. 35.00 per month from 13-9-71 to the date of suit with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 70.00 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. 35.00 per month. The defendants fell in arrears of rent since 1958 and except for the payment of Rs. 500.00 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.) The trial Court once dismissed the suit with costs vide its judgment and decree dated 20-3-1980, holding that the plaintiff was not sole owner/landlord and notice on his behalf as well as the suit filed by him alone were not maintainable.