FAQIR CHAND Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant applicant. It arises out of a suit which had been fled by the plaintiff - opposite party for ejectment of the defendant-applicant from a shop, bearing No. 471 situated in Mohalla Kalyan Singh, Kasba Mawana, District Meerut, and for arrears of rent. The rent was Rs. 10.00 per month and the tenancy was from month to month. It was alleged that the defendant-applicant had built his own shops and had started carrying on his business in those shops and had illegally sub-let the disputed shop to one Surendra Kumar son of Sri Raghubir Saran. When the plaintiff opposite party came to know of the illegal sub-letting, he served a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 20th Feb. 1973 on Sri Surendra Kumar. That notice was served on 21.2.1973. By that notice the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant-applicant and required him to vacate the shop within thirty days after service of the notice and to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 80.00. The notice was not complied with and hence the suit was filed.

(2.) The defendant-applicant contested the suit and denied sub-letting of the disputed shop to Surendara Kumar. Evidence was led by both the parties and the learned trial court held that the defendant-applicant had not sub-let the disputed shop to Surendra Kumar. Hence the relief for ejectment was denied. The suit was decreed for arrears of rent only. Since the defendant applicant had deposited that amount in the court, the plaintiff opposite party was permitted to withdraw it.

(3.) Being aggrieved the plaintiff-opposite party filed a revision application before the District Judge, 'Meerut. That revision application was decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Meerut on 2.9.1974. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge referred to Sec. 12(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which lays down that the landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. Sec. 25 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 also prohibits sub-letting. Thus it was to be established that the defendant-applicant had ceased to occupy the shop and that it was in the possession of Surendra Kumar and that he had sub-let it to Surendra Kumar. The learned Additional District Judge relied on two circumstances viz. firstly that the notice which had been issued by the plaintiff opposite party to Sri Surendra Kumar had been served on him at the address of the disputed shop and secondly that in the municipal records for the years 1.4.1969 to 31.3.1974 it was the name of Surendra Kumar which was recorded against the disputed shop, and held that the defendant-applicant had let-out the disputed shop to Surendra Kumar. He also took notice of the fact that the defendant-applicant had constructed his own shops and that Surendra Kumar was not his relation. On this evidence the learned Additional District Judge held that the learned trial court had erred in holding that the shop in dispute had not been sub-let by the defendant-applicant to Surendra Kumar. In the result the plaintiff opposite party was held entitled to ejectment of the defendant-applicant. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.