SHAKOORAN BIBI Vs. RAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated August 23, 1966 passed by Shri B.D. Gupta, the then Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for possession over the houses in dispute and for the recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 7.00 per month from January 31, 1964 upto the date of the delivery of possession. The parties were made to bear their own costs of both the courts.

(2.) THE plaintiffs respondents are the owners of the two houses in suit situate in Mohalla Narsingh Rao in the City of Jhansi. They were let out to one Rasool Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 7.00. The tenancy was from month to month and used to expire on the 15th of the English calendar month. According to the plaintiffs respondents Rasool Khan sub-let portions of the said house to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 without their consent. They also caused substantial damage to the roofs and the walls of the houses. Therefore, on both these grounds, the plaintiffs respondents sought eviction of Rasool Khan from the houses in suit. A requisite notice to quit was served on him on January 31, 1963 as he did not vacate it on the expiry of the period given in the notice, the plaintiffs sued for his ejectment along with the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and for the recovery of damages for use and occupation at the rate of 50 P. per day. It may be stated here that Rasool Khan died during the pendency of the suit and his widow, defendant No. 1|1 and his sons defendants Nos. 1|2 to 1(4 were substituted in his place. Rasool Khan contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that no portion of the house was ever sub-let to defendants Nos. 2 to 4. According to him, Shakoor Khan, defendant No. 2 lived with him as his close relation and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 never occupied any portion of these houses. He also denied that he had caused any dam age much less substantial to the roofs and walls of the house.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed an appeal. The learned first appellate court also agreed with the learned Munsif that there was no sub-letting of any portion of the house by Rasool Khan to defendants Nos. 2 to 4, nor any damage was caused by him to the walls and roofs. He fur ther held that after determination of his tenancy by mean of the notice under Sention 106, Rasool Khan became statutory tenant As the tenancy was determined in his life time, his right as statutory incant did not devolve on his widow and sons (defendant Nos.1/1 to ) and they were liable to be evicted in that very suit. Accordingly and the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the two houses and for the recovery of Rs. 7.00 per month as damages for use and occupation from January 31, 1964 was decreed.