BADRI NATH GARG Vs. SHEO PRASAD TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and order dated 22nd of January, 1985, passed by Sri D.C. Srivastava, IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 56 of 1983, decreeing the suit for the ejectment of the applicant from the suit accommodation and for recovery of Rs. 1324 as arrears of rent and taxes at the old rate Rs. 400 as enhanced water tax and sewage tax and for Rs. 212.50 per month for wrongful use and occupation with effect from 8.3.83 to 30.4.1984, besides future damages for such wrongful occupation.

(2.) THE facts encompassing the controversy are that the opposite party filed a suit against the applicant and the plaint allegations reveal that opposite party, landlord is the owner of house No. 43/66, Chowk, Kanpur. The applicant was a tenant of the suit accommodation at the rate of Rs. 212.50 per month including water tax. Earlier the rate was alleged to Rs. 200 per month. The suit accommodation comprises of the entire basement and one room on the ground floor. It was alleged by the opposite party that the applicant fell in arrears of rent with effect from 1.9.1982 and inspite of repeated demand failed to pay enhanced water tax and sewage tax with effect from 1.4.1981. It was further alleged by the opposite party that (Badri Nath Garg) has sub-let the accommodation to Kailash Nath Garg who is not his family member. It was also alleged that Kailash Nath Garg is carrying on business in the name and style of "M/s Adarsh Pustak Bhandar" in the suit accommodation. The opposite party sent a notice dated 4.2.1983 demanding arrears of rent and other accrued dues. The opposite party by the said notice terminated the tenancy of the applicant, who was called upon to vacate the accommodation in his tenancy and occupation. It was further alleged that the notice was personally served on the applicant, but inspite of the service of the notice the applicant neither complied with the requirements of the notice nor even replied to it.

(3.) THE applicant contested the suit raising various pleas. Allegation regarding refusal to pay the rent was specifically denied. As regards allegation of sub-letting having been done by the applicant in favour of Kailash Nath Garg, it was specifically alleged that the applicant alone is not the sole tenant as the suit accommodation was taken for the joint family Firm of which the applicant alongwith three other brothers are the co-parceners of the joint Family Firm. The suit was, thus alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties that is other brothers of joint Hindu Family Firm. Further the allegation regarding the creation of sub-tenancy by the applicant in favour of Kailash Nath Garg was vehemently denied and it was strenuously contended that the suit accommodation was taken for the family business, which is being carried on.