ROOP KISHORE AGARWAL Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlord respondent No. 3 Ramesh Chand Agarwal in the form of SCC suit No. 32 of 1994. Landlord stated in the plaint of the suit that property in dispute which is in the form of two shops was let out through registered lease deed to Roop Kishore Agarwal petitioner No. 1 however he had sublet the same to petitioner No 2 and 3 Smt Aasha Agarwal and Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Smt Aasha Agarwal is wife of Sudhir Agarewal who is real brother of Roop Kishore Agarwal petitioner defendant No. 3. Ashok Kumar is also real brother of Roop Kishore Agarwal. Property was let out through registered lease deed in August 1969.

(2.) Defendants took up the case that accommodation in dispute was taken on rent by Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which all the three brothers were members and their father Vishan Narain Agarwal was Karta hence there was no subletting. Trial court did not believe the version of the tenants. Trial court held that brother and brother's wife are not members of family as defined under Section 3(g) of the Act hence sub-letting was established. Additional JSCC, Bareilly decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 7.8,99. It may be mentioned that the rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 75/- per month. Against judgment and decree passed by the trial court, petitioners filed SCC Revision No. 25 of 99. IV A.D.J, Bareilly through judgment and order dated 2 4.l0.2000, dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

(3.) In my opinion, both the courts below have rightly held that building in dispute was not allotted to HUF. Courts below rightly held that in case building had been let out to HUF it should have been mentioned in the registered lease deed while the said deed was only in between landlord and Roop Kishore Agarwal petitioner defendant No. 1. Courts below also rightly held that in case building in dispute had been let out to HUF then the lease should have been in favour of father of defendant No. 1 and 3 as he was alive at the time of execution of lease deed and he was Karta of HUF.