RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. SHYAM BEHARILAL JAGANNATH CLOTH MERCHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and rent in respect of House No. 49/19 situate in Generalganj in Kanpur. Messrs. Manni Lal Beni Madho defendant No. 1 had been a tenant of the plaintiffs in this house on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- per month. The tenancy had been from month to month beginning from the first of each Hindi calendar month. On the date of the suit, rent had fallen in arrears to the extent of Rs. 420/- and it had not been, paid by defendant No. 1 in spite of demand. Defendants No. 1 had led defendant No. 2, namely, Messrs Shyam Behari Lal Jagannath into occupation of the premises as a sub-tenant. The date when the sub-tenancy began was the subject of dispute between the parties. Whereas the plaintiffs had contended that the sub-tenancy began after the 1-10-1946 without their knowledge and consent, the defendants contended that the subtenancy began in August, 1946, with the permission of the plaintiffs. The question became important because of the restriction on eviction, imposed by Section 3 (i) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No. III of 1947. The plaintiffs had filed the suit after obtaining necessary permission of the Collector to evict defendant No. 1 from the premises. They contended that there was no privity of contract between them and defendant No. 2 and consequently defendant No. 2 was liable to eviction along with the other defendant.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit on the ground that the subletting was done with the permission of the plaintiffs; that defendant No. 1 offered rent to the plaintiffs but it was not accepted by them; that defendant No. 1 urgently requires the shop for his own personal use and he was taking necessary steps to eject defendant No. 2 and that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs to bring undue influence upon him with a view to enhance the rent.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 pleaded that the subtenancy was created by defendant No. 1 in his favour on 2-8-1946, at Rs. 70/-; that on that date he gave defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 300/- with a stipulation that defendant No. 1 would return the amount to him after a year; that defendant No. 2 has regularly been paying the rent to the principal tenant; that the suit was brought by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 1 and that having regard to the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, he was not liable to be ejected.