VIDYAWATI CHHABRA Vs. XITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first writ petition has been filed by defendants IInd set, widow, sons and daughters of alleged joint tenant Trilok Nath Chhabra and the second writ petition has been filed by Haveli Ram, the tenant.

(2.) These writ petitions arise out of suit for eviction filed by landlord-respondent Sundar Lal Bhatia (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) in the form of SCC Suit No. 354 of 1979. In the plaint of the suit it was stated that Haveli Ram was tenant of two shops on behalf of the landlord on monthly rent of Rs. 80 and that one of the two shops had been sub-let by him to Som Nath and Gulshan Kumar who were proprietors/partners of M/s. Vijai Rickshaw Company without the consent of the landlord and District Magistrate. In the plaint the solitary defendant tenant was described as "Haveli Ram adult son of not known proprietor M/s. Nanak Rickshaw Stores 110/182, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur." In the suit an application was filed by Smt. Vidyawati Chhabra and her sons and daughters including Som Nath Chhabra and Gulshan Kumar Chhabra petitioners of first writ petition stating therein that Late Triloki Nath Chhabra, husband of Smt. Vidyawati Chhabra was partner in M/s. Nanak Rickshaw Stores which was a partnership firm hence they were also necessary parties to the suit. The impleadment application was allowed. The newly impleaded defendants filed written statement. In Para 1 of the written statement it was pleaded that Haveli Ram and Late Triloki Nath Chhabra were joint tenants of the two shops along with a room at the back of one of the shops at monthly rent of Rs. 110 and they were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Nanak Rickshaw Stores which was a registered partnership firm and had commenced business on 1.4.1956. It was further pleaded that the said firm was dissolved on 25.11.1969 and by virtue of the dissolution deed one shop fell in the share of Shri Triloki Nath and the other shop with the back room fell in the share of Haveli Ram and that later on Haveli Ram surrendered the back room to the landlord and thereafter he also started paying rent of Rs. 40 per month.

(3.) The tenancy was started in the year 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the firm was in existence since 1952 and shops were taken on rent by the firm and it started its business therefrom just after commencement of tenancy even though, the said firm was initially unregistered and it was registered later on, i.e., on 1.4.1956. However, this argument is not in consonance with the written statement of the impleaded defendants in the suit. In para 1 of the written statement it was stated that: