ULFAT RAI Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C. should have been filed under Sec. 25, Small Cause Court Act. However, I am not attaching any importance to the mistake committed in this regard.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent and damages in respect of a shop alleging that the defendants were in arrears of rent and in spite of a notice of demand, they failed to pay the arrears within time. Their tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 27-6-1970 but as they failed to vacate the premises, hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested on the grounds that one Jagannath was also a tenant of the premises and as no notice to quit and to pay the arrears of rent had been served on him and he had not been impleadcd as a party to the suit, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that the alleged arrears of rent from 1-1-1970 to 31-3-1970 was paid to the plaintiff on 25-4-1970 and as such no default was committed. It was further pleaded that no notice of demand was served on the defendants and the notice to quit was invalid.