GAYA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the judgment passed by the Court below decreeing the suit of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for judgment against the petitioner.

(2.) BOTH the trial Court as well as the Revision Court have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and that the petitioner was a defaulter. Having recorded these categorical findings, the suit has been decreed by the Courts below.

(3.) IN regard to the second submission made by the learned Counsel, the suit had originally been filed by Moti Sahu, who was the karta of the family, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. Mahesh Chand Sahu was a member of the Joint Hindu family. During the pendency of the suit, the partition took place and Mahesh Chand Sahu became the exclusive owner of the shop. Since the tenancy was terminated also on behalf of Mahesh Chand Sahu, the suit could be continued by Mahesh Chand Sahu when he became the absolute owner after partition. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the decree passed in favour of Mahesh Chand Sahu was, in any manner, illegal. I agree with the view taken by the Revisional Court in this behalf.