BODHANLAL Vs. KEWALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of subletting. There is no disput before me about the arrears of rent. The trial Judge passed a decree for eviction and it has been confirmed by the first appellate Court.

(2.) THE only point raised by Shri Dharmadhikari is that the suit for ejectment should have been dismissed because the plaintiff did not prove the subletting to be without his direct or indirect permission. That the defendent had sublet a part of the suit premises to one Abdul Sattar cannot be questioned here because there in a concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below and that finding is based on the evidence produced by the parties.

(3.) THIS appeal is, therefore, confined to the question whether the subletting by the defendent to Abdul Sattar was direct or indirect permission of the plaintiff. I must observe at the outset that the pleading in the written statement was defective. Permission was not specifically alleged. In answering paragraph 6 (a) of the plaint where it was averred that the defendent sublet one -third of the accommodation without direct or indirect permission of the plaintiff. This was traversed in the corresponding paragraph 6 (a) of the written statement in these words: