CHHOTEY LAL Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree for their ejectment passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Etawah. The facts are these. The plaintiff-respondent Har Prasad alleged in his plaint that he was the landlord or shop and had Eet it out on rent to the defendants Chotey Lal and Daya Ram that they had not paid any rent for about two years in spite of a notice of demand ana had made willful default; that the plaintiff had terminated their tenancy after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed the present suit for their ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent

(2.) Bath the defendants resisted the suit and denied the plaintiff's title. They alleged that he was not owner of the shop which really belonged to one Smt. Ram Devi and that they were Ram Devi's tenants and derived their title from her. According to the defendants, Har prasad had merely acted as the Mukhtar-e-Am of Smt. Ram Devi but had usurped the title of the owner. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Ram Devi applied for being added as a defendant. She alleged that she was the real owner and Har Prasad was not entitled either to eject her tenants or collect any rent from them. Her application was rejected by the trial Court. This unfortunate decision resulted in multiplicity of litigation for Ram Devi was sabsequently compelled to file a separate suit against Har Prasad tor a declaration of her title to this shop and recovery or possession.

(3.) The trial Court held that a relationship of a landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and defendants who had made willful default in payment of arrears. Accordingly it decreed the suit, this decision was continued by the lower appellate Court and the defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal.