NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. DINANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 29.9.1977 this Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant had sued the defendant for eviction from the suit premises. The trial Court decreed the suit only for arrears of rent and dismissed it so far as ejectment was concerned on the ground that the tenancy was not terminated validly. On an appeal, the first appellate Court has maintained the judgment so far as validity of the termination of the tenancy but partly allowed the appeal holding that the rate of rent should have been decreed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month from 16.4.1964 onwards. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff has filed this Second appeal.

(3.) IN reply it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the lease has not been validly terminated and the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that the original landlord Kalyanmal died in the year 1961 leaving behind a son and widow. The plaintiff is the son, who alone has issued the notice of termination dated 17.11.1962, which was served upon the defendant on 20.11.1962. The tenancy was terminated on Paushbadhi Amavasya falling on 26.12.1962. It was also contended that the plaintiff did not step into the witness box when allegations were made that negotiations were held with him. It is further submitted that after having held that the suit was bad for non-joinder then the rent part of the decree could not have been maintained. As regards the plea that the plaintiff was the Karta of his joint family consisting of himself and his mother, it is contended that there was nothing in the pleadings about the existence of joint family and the suit property being a joint family property. Distinguishing the Full Bench decision 1990 JLJ 97 (supra) it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the said case and the cases of the Supreme Court on which it was based were all cases under the Rent Control Laws. According to the respondent it was because of the definition of 'landlord' in the various Rent Control Legislations that the Supreme Court has held in those cases that one of the co-owners also could sue as 'landlord'. According to the respondent these cases do not apply to a case, to which Rent Control Laws are not applicable. In this connection decisions reported in Abdul Hamid v. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, AIR 1953 Nag. 18; Sardarimal v. Narainlal, 1980 JLJ 110 were cited.