RAJENDRA NATH TRIPATHI Vs. JAGDISH DUTT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 allowing the revision and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that defendant No. 1 Ram Adhar Tewari was a tenant and he had sub-let the disputed accommodation to Rajendra Nath Tiwari and Jogendra Nath Tewari, defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants also unauthorisedly constructed Chabutra and raised the wall. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement. He denied that he had sub-let the accommodation in question and there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. The Judge, Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on 7.9.1990 on the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were nephews of defendant No. 1 and as they were living with him as relations, they were not occupying the disputed accommodation as sub-tenants. The plaintiff filed revision against this order. The revision has been allowed by respondent No. 2 on 5.5.1992 and the suit has been decreed on the finding that there is relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and further defendant No. 1 has sub-let it to defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The question is whether the nephew can be held to be a member of family as defined under Section 3 (g) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The definition does not cover nephew as a member of the family of the landlord/tenant. A nephew has no independent right to occupy an accommodation let out to his uncle. If the uncle has passed on possession to him, the tenant shall be deemed to have sub-let in view of provision of Section 25 read with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act.