RAM CHANDRA Vs. JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law has been raised in this tenant's petition as to whether one suit for eviction could have been filed in respect of two tenements. From a copy of plaint filed with petition it is apparent that case of opposite party was that Petitioner was tenant of two rooms in the same building -one at the ground floor and other at the first floor. The room at ground floor was let out at Rs. 10/ - p. m. for commercial purpose whereas room at first floor was let out for residential purposes at Rs. 25/ - p.m. Tenancy of former started from 3rd of every month whereas of the latter from 9th. It, therefore, stands established from the pleading of opposite party that they formed part of two different agreements and in fact two tenancies were created. The suit for eviction was filed under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 claiming that Petitioner was in arrears of rent of Rs. 35/ - since 1973. It has been found by both the Courts below that Petitioner was in arrears and had not paid the rent. Consequently the suit has been decreed. None of these findings have been challenged. But what is urged is that on admitted facts one suit in respect of two tenancies or two tenements was not maintainable.

(2.) ALTHOUGH this submission does not appear to have been raised before any of the Courts below but as it goes to very root of the matter and touches the question of jurisdiction for which material facts are on record it has to be entertained and decided. Building has been defined in the Act to mean a residential or non -residential roofed structure. Similarly tenant and landlord have been defined, 'in relation to a building to mean a person by whom or to whom rent is payable. Building has to be understood as including a part of it as well. For instance if there are ten rooms in a building, and each is let out separately, then each room is a building for purposes of this Act. What is decisive, however, is the agreement entered between landlord and tenant. The agreement has to be in relation to a building, where there are two agreements for two different rooms may be in the same building then two agreements come into being, two separate tenements are created. It cannot be disputed that one suit against two tenants cannot be filed. Similarly one suit against two tenements of the same tenant cannot be filed. It shall be bad for joining two different cause of action. Reason is obvious. It can well be illustrated by facts of this very case. If Petitioner would have served two notices for two tenements claiming Rs. 10/ - and Rs. 25/ - instead of Rs. 35/ - Petitioner could have paid the rent of one to save himself from eviction. It may be examined from another angle. Suppose after filing of suit Petitioner would have intended to avail of benefit of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 what amount he should have deposited because arrears, interest, cost of suit for one shall be different than for the two. The Petitioner's suit, therefore, was bad.

(3.) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The orders of the Courts below for eviction from the shop at ground floor only are quashed. As no body has appeared for opposite party there shall be no order as to costs.