BANSHRAJI AND ANOTHER Vs. PYARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 78/- and damages in the sum of Rs. 200.00 in respect of a house situated at Gorakhpur. The suit was instituted on 21st Nov., 1967, and the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as Act III of 1947) then in force, was applicable to the accommodation. The grounds on which the defendants ejectment was claimed were: (1) substantial damage to the accommodation for which damages in the sum of Rs. 200.00 were claimed; and (2) subletting of the accommodation by the first defendant, who is the widow of the original tenant Ram Murti Singh, to the second defendant. The first ground does not survive for consideration in this second appeal; nor does the claim for damages, as the trial court found against the plaintiff-respondent on the point and it was not agitated any further.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent came to Court with the allegations that the first defendants husband Ram Murti Singh was the tenant of the house on payment of Rs. 26/- p. m. as rent; that he died on 13th April, 1966; that the first defendant claimed to be the tenant of the house after his death on the instigation of the second defendant which led to litigation between the parties under Sec. 3 of the Act III of 1947; that the first defendant does not live in the house but lives at Jaunpur with her children; that out of enmity caused by the said litigation, the first defendant sublet the house to the second defendant and to another person who was a teacher in the Government Jubilee High School, Gorakhpur; that the defendant had damaged the accommodation, causing loss of Rs. 200.00; that the tenancy of the 1st defendant was thereupon terminated by a notice dated 9th Oct., 1967 served by registered post acknowledgment due on the defendants; that after service of the notice the other sub-tenant, namely, the teacher, was ousted, but the 2nd defendant continues as a sub-tenant of the 1st defendant; that again out of enmity the first defendant was depositing the rent in the Munsifs Court under Sec. 7-C of Act m of 1947, but the rent for the period commencing from 1st Aug., 1967 was due, amounting to Rs. 78/- up to 31st Oct., 1967. A fresh plea to the effect that the 2nd defendant, who was in occupation of the accommodation, had started using it for business, was raised by amendment of the plaint but that too does not survive for consideration in this second appeal.

(3.) In defence, only the 1st defendant filed a written statement. She pleaded that after the death of her husband, she along with their 3 sons, are the tenants of the house, as his successors; that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the sons; that she along with the sons has been living in the house as a tenant after her husbands death; that the allegation that she lives at Jaunpur was wrong; that she never sub-let the house to anyone; that the 2nd defendant was her husbands younger brother and had been living in the house since her husbands lifetime, that her husbands ancestral house was at Jaunpur, which she visited off and on, but permanently lived in the house in suit as a tenant, and regularly paid the rent and deposited it under Sec. 7-C of Act III of 1947, and the rent up to Nov., 1967. was duly paid up. There were other pleas which do not survive for consideration except the one contained in paragraph 23 of the written statement that the notice given by the plaintiff was absolutely wrong and against law, and the other contained in paragraph 25 that the suit was barred by Sec. 3 of Act III of 1947.