MITHARAM Vs. DEOCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the appellants for recovery of possession of a house and arrears of rent from the respondent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but it has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE plainiff appellants alleged that the house in suit belonged to their father Pandu (deceased) who have leased it to the defendant in 1918 on rent at Re. 1/ per month and then in 1920 and 1922 at Rs. 2/ - per month. It was also alleged that after the expiry of the lease granted in 1922, an oral agreement took place on 20 -6 -1923 between Pandu and the respondent that he would continue as a tenant at Rs. 2/ - per month. Plaintiffs gave a notice to the respondent on 13 -10 -1955 to vacate the house by 19 -11 -1955; but the defendant failed to do so. Accordingly, the suit was brought for possession of the house and for recovery of arrears of rent for three years.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have found that Pandu was not the benamidar of the defendant and that the rent -notes of 1918 and 1920 were genuine documents. These findings are now binding on the parties in second appeal.