TRILOK SINGH Vs. BHAWANI PRASAD GIRDHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1975, passed by Sri G.B Singh then IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur, whereby he confirmed the trial court decree for eviction, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation while setting aside the decree for a sum of Rs. 500/- as damages for alleged demolition of a wall. Suit no 647 of 1968 was filed by the plaintiff- respondent alleging that it is a registered partnership firm, entiled to sue through one of its partners Ram Chandra Prasad Agarwal. The defendants- appellants were the plaintiffs-tenants of an ahata, bearing Municipal No 118/ 299, situated In Mohalla Kaushalpuri, Kanpur City on Rs. 85/- per month as rent They, however, sublet a portion of the premises in their tenancy to one Gurubux Singh alias Buxi Singh, resident of house No. 118/339 Kaushalpuri without the permission of the plaintiffs. The said subtenant has further constructed a new puce a wall, put a 'chhappar'. cattle troughs tethering pegs and tin shed in the premises in question. The defendants also demolished a portion of the eastern and southern boundary walls of the plaintiffs and misappropriated its bricks valued Rs. 500/-. They have also created nuisance by digging a big pit In the ahata and storing cow dung therein. On account of these acts of theirs the defendants have rendered themselves liable to ejectment. The plaintiff, accordingly, serued two notices, one dated 2-8-1968 and the other dated 24-8-1968, on the defendants. The notice dated 24-8- 1968 was served on 27-8-1968 and on expiry of one month period on 26-9-1968 the tenancy stood determined. The suit was, accordingly, filed for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and also Rs. 500/- as damages for misappropriation of the bricks.

(2.) THE defendants-appellants who contested the suit, admitted the factum of service of notice but denied rest of the contentions. THEy pleaded that the plaintiff, a firm, could not be the lessor of the premises in question nor has it any right to terminate the tenancy or file the suit for ejectment and damages etc. against the defendants. THEy denied having sublet any portion of the promises in question to Gurubux Singh and also denied having made any construction or material alterations in the premises in question or having committed nuisence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for both the sides have been heard and the record of the courts below has been perused.