CHANDUMALJAMNUMAL KUKREJA Vs. GYARSILALRAMJILAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is preferred by the defendants against the judgment and order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Nagpur, decreeing the respondent's suit for recovery of possession.

(2.) THE respondent obtained permission for terminating the tenancy of the revision applicants under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. The permission proceedings were contested upto the Supreme Court. The order granting permission to terminate the tenancy of the revision applicants was upheld. Thereupon, the respondent issued a notice for termination of the tenancy on 16. 2. 1988. Since it was not complied with, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 2401 of 1989 under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ).

(3.) THE only question raised on behalf of the applicants is whether the suit was tenable against the applicant No. 2 Nandulal who was described as a trespasser claiming through the tenant under Section 26 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, it is not. The learned counsel submits that the respondent has described the applicant No. 2 Nandulal as a trespasser and, therefore, the suit not being one between a landlord and tenant was not tenable against him under Section 26 of the Act. Section 26 reads as follows:-