KALURAM JAIN Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven connected revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arise from a common judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 14-1-1975 dismissing the revisions filed under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Mahabir Prasad, plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, was the owner of a building and few shops situated in Bazar Burababu, Laskarganj, Sardahaba, district Meerut. THE shops had been let out to various tenants, Budhumal was the tenant of shop No. 32, Baldeo Raj was the tenant of upper storey of the building bearing No. 27, Ramphal was the tenant of shop No. 28 where as Kallu Ram was the tenant of shop No. 30. THEse tenants were in arrears of rent. Mahavir Prasad sent combined notices of demand for determination of tenancy to these tenants. THEy did not pay the rent. Hence, Mahabir Prasad filed four suits for ejectment and for recovery of the arrears of rent against the four tenants. He impleaded Smt. Sulochana Devi, the wife of his deceased son Sukhmal Chand, and her two sons as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit. Mahabir Prasad did not seek any relief against the aforesaid defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He, however, alleged that the aforesaid defendants had no concern with the disputed premises. He further alleged that after the death of his son, Sukhmal Chand, the plaintiff opposite-party premitted Smt. Sulochna Devi, defendant No. 2, to realise rent from the plaintiff's property for her maintenance and her two children by the document dated 8-12-1966. THE disputed shops were also included in the said deed. But as Smt. Sulochana Devi, defendant No. 2, committed breach of the conditions of the agreement and instead of residing at Sardahana and maintainin her two minor sons, she began to live at Chap-rauli with her parents, therefore, the deed dated 8-12-1966 was cancelled on 2-11-1970. After the cancellation of the said deed, the defendant No. 2 was deprived of the benefits of the maintenance which she was granted.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court, the tenants as well as Smt. Sulochana Devi preferred eight revisions before the learned District Judge. These revisions were transferred to the II Additional Civil Judge and were " dismissed by the impugned order dated 14-1-1975.