BAL KRISHNA Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.1986 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and the order dated 25.8.1989 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Varanasi dismissing the revision filed by the defendant-tenant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the disputed shop was allotted to Sri Krishna Kumar on 24.11.1975 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and an agreement of tenancy was also executed between the previous owner Panchayati Akhara Maha Nirvan, through its Secretary on 24.11.1975. The defendant No. 1 Krishna Kumar had paid rent of the disputed shop to its previous owner upto September, 1981 and receipts were issued in his name : The building was purchased by respondents 3 to 5 on 5.10.1981 and they started realising the rent from defendant No. 2 Bal Krishna who was paying rent on behalf of the defendant No. 1 in capacity of the Manager. After some time when the plaintiff received knowledge of the illegal occupation of defendant No. 2 they filed the present suit. It was also alleged that the defendant No. 2 is in exclusive possession of the shop and paid consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to defendant No. 1 in obtaining possession of the disputed shop.

(3.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court, after examining the entire material on record held that the defendant No. 2 always demonstrated to be paying rent on behalf of defendant No. 1 and claimed to be his Manager. There is nothing to indicate that any fresh contract of tenancy or relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the present landlord and defendant No. 2. The possession of defendant No. 2 was held to be unauthorised as sub-tenant without the permission of the landlord and thus the decree for eviction against him was passed. It was also held that consideration of Rs. 10,000/- passed to defendant No. 1 and the tenancy of defendant No. 2 cannot be treated to be regularised. These findings have also been upheld by the revisional Court in confirming the decree for ejectment. According to the learned Eighth Additional District Judge, defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession although the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shop in whose favour the allotment order stood. The defendant No. 2 did not attain independent status as of tenant and his possession was that of a sub-tenant liable to ejectment.