(1.) This appeal is filed by original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the decree of Rs. 1,32,000/-passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No. 225/ 1991 decided on 8-1-1996 whereby the appellants and respondent No. 2 were directed to pay the decreetal amount to respondent No. 1/plaintiff.
(2.) Briefly stated, it is no more disputed that respondent No. 1 had taken contract from the appellants for supply of P.C.C. slabs for construction of canals of Jayakwadi project. It was contract mainly between the appellants and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 owned a factory under the name and Style 'M/s. Gupta Industries' situate at Survey No. 14, Telwadi, Tq. Paithan. It is a small scale industry manufacturing cement channels. It is also not disputed any more that respondent No. 2 entered into contract with respondent No. 1 on 23-12-1986 and took over the factory of respondent No. 1 alongwith machinery and open space etc. on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. It is also not disputed that no contract was entered into between the appellants and respondent No. 1. For certain reasons, the contract entered into by appellants with respondent No. 2 to supply P.C.C. Slabs was cancelled. It is also not disputed that the agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which was for a period of two years came to an end on 20-9-1989 and inspite of termination of contract between respondent Nos. 1 and 2, two lac pieces of P.C.C. slabs manufactured by respondent No. 2 continued to remain on the factory premises owned by respondent No. 1. Correspondence was made by respondent No. 1 both with respondent No. 2 and appellant No. 2 regarding removal of P.C.C. slabs and also for getting rent for storing P.C.C. slabs on his premises after 20-9-1989. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 filed suit for recovery of rent from 20-9-1989 till 20-7-1991 so also for damages. Total claim was for Rs. 2,42,500/ -. Trial Court passed decree in respect of Rs. 1,32,000/- as against respondent No. 2 and appellants. Being aggrieved thereby the appellants have filed the instant appeal.
(3.) It is the case of the appellants that there was no contract between the appellants and respondent No. 1 and as such, there is no liability to pay any rent. The contract was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, only respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the rent. On the other hand, trial Court has taken a view that in view of correspondent produced on record between the parties to the suit, it is clear that inspite of termination of agreement between the respondents, the appellants did not take away 2 lac pieces of P.C.C. slabs and thereby utilised the premises. Not only that, the officers of the appellant even made correspondence with their superiors and made proposal for making payment of the rent. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree was passed.