SUBHASH CHANDRA SARDARMAL LALWANI Vs. RADHAVALLABH SALIGRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff.

(2.) A very interesting point of law is raised in this case. A house, situate at khazanchi lane Sarafa Bazar Chowk, Bhopal, was owned by Alamdar Hussain and his family. In part of the house, Radhavallabh, the defendant No. 1, was a tenant. The whole of the house was sold in different lots to 8 persons. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 purchased in different lots the portion occupied by the defendant No. 1. Out of the portion let out to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had purchased the portion marked as No. 8 in the plaint map and more fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff desired to rebuild the house which is in a dilapidated condition and hence gave a quit notice to the defendant No. 1 and filed the suit for ejectment. The defendant had also not Paid the rent from the date of the transfer till the date of the suit. Hence a decree for proportionate rent was also claimed and the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were added as parties to the suit because they had also claim over part of rent and were entitled to be heard on the question of apportionment of rent.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff alone could not have terminated the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 vis-a-vis the portion purchased by him. That court, however, held that if the notice would have been held to be valid, the plaintiff would have been entitled to the relief of ejectment of the defendant No. 1. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent. Even on the finding that the notice was not valid, the decree for arrears of rent could not have been set aside by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, however, in a hurry failed to take note of this fact also and dismissed the plaintiff's suit entirely.