BANNEY Vs. IST A D J MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 21-9-1981 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the revision and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 filed suit No. 290 of 1974 against respondents 3 and 4 and the petitioners, for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that he had let out the disputed premises to defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 3 and 4 herein) on monthly rent of Rs. 25. THEy did not pay the rent. Notice demanding the arrears of rent was sent but they did not comply with it. It was further stated that they had sub-let it to defendants 3 to 9. THE defendants 1 and 2 and 9 did not contest the suit. THE trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that certain constructions were raised by defendants 3 to 9 and, there fore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. THE plaintiff-respondents filed revision against this order. Respon dent No. 1 allowed the revision and recorded finding that defendants 1 and 2 were parties in the earlier suit No. 484 of 1968 and that finding is binding upon them. It was not established that defen dants 3 to 9 had right over the property in dispute and it shall be deemed that the disputed property was sublet to them by the defendants 1 and 2. This order has been challenged by the petitioners. Defendants 1 and 2 have not filed writ petition against this judgment.

(3.) IN view of the above, the writ peti tion is partly allowed and the order dated 21-9-1981 of respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed, subject to the observations made above. The trial Court will re- examine the matter and if necessary can take additional evidence in the case which may be sub mitted by the parties. As the matter is old, the trial Court shall decide the suit within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. '