CHANDRASHEKHAR SHAMBHURAO GADGIL Vs. RAMRAO GANPATRAO SIRASAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original unsuccessful defendant.

(2.) ONE Ramrao son of Ganpatrao Sirasao brought a suit against the present appellant on the ground that he himself was the tenant of the premises on the suit plot. Later on, in the year 1967, he constructed a tin shed, which he let out to the present appellant. He was recovering rent of the said tin shed from the appellant. The appellant contended that he was the tenant of the original owner Shri Haq and not the sub-tenant of the plaintiff-tenant. According to him, he was paying the rent to the original owner Shri Haq and, therefore, the suit pursuant to a notice of termination issued by the original plaintiff and the filing of the suit was not maintainable against him. On facts, the appellant lost his defence before both the Courts and obviously, while deciding the present Second Appeal, the position will have to be accepted that the appellant was the subtenant of the plaintiff, who himself was the tenant of Shri Haq. There was an agreement of lease between the plaintiff and the present appellant. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the appellant and then filed a suit and both the Courts decreed the -claim of the plaintiff for eviction and consequential reliefs in respect of past and future mesne profit.

(3.) IN this appeal against the concurrent decree that has been passed against the appellant, one substantial question of law was permitted to be canvassed that is about the applicability of the provisions of the Central provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and rent Control Order, 1949.