MITHLESH PRAKASH Vs. RAM KIRPAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit brought against them by the plaintiffs for ejectment. The case set up in the plaint was that the defendants were tenants of two shops at the rate of Rs.14.50 per month. The defendants did not pay the rent from 1.10-1961 and, therefore a notice was served on them demand ing the arrears of rent and also for the termination of their tenancy on 7-4-1964. The defendants having failed to comply with the same, the present suit was filed. The defendants raised a number of pleas but the relevant ones are that the tenancy of Prem Prakash originally was not in his individual capacity but the same was in his capacity as the Karta of the family and since the notice has not been served on his brothers who constituted coparcenery with him, the suit was not maintainable. The second ground was that Akhilesh Prakash, defendant No. 4, was a minor and the notice addressed to him did not make a mention that he was a minor or that he was under the guardianship of his mother and as such the notice was invalid. It was also alleged that the notice was also otherwise invalid. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appeal was also dismissed. The defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 have now come up before this Court in second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued the following four points: - 1. That the lower appellate court has not considered the grounds taken in defence that the tenancy of Prem Prakash was in his capacity as the Karta of the family.

(2.) THAT Akhilesh Prakash was a minor and the notice addressed to him without mentioning that he was a minor under the guardianship of his mother was invalid. It was further argued that even on the mother the service was by refusal and that cannot be taken as a valid service.