MOHAMMADI BEGUM Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff, Mst. Mohammadi Begam, had filed a suit implending Abdul Majid Khan as Defendant No. 1 and the manager of Anwar Khan Mahbub Khan, Biri Merchants, as Defendant No. 2, for the recovery of Rs. 8,850 - as being the arrears of rent from 8th of July 1949 up to 8th of June 1952. at the rate of Rs. 250 - per month and for ejectment of the Defendants from the two houses referred to in paragraph 1 of the paint. The trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 3,112 -8 -0 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,500 - which was paid as advance rent for six months to the Plaintiff on 8 -1 -1949 from the amount of Rs. 4,612 -8 -0 which was found due and dismissed the claim for ejectment holding that the notice to quit which was served on Defendant No. 1 was ineffective as he was required to vacate a day before the last date of the month of tenancy. Being aggrieved by he judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Plaintiff has come up in appeal seeking ejectment of Defendant No. 1 from the suit premises and claiming a decree for the whole amount of Rs. 8,850 in lieu of the amount decreed.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's claim, as set up in the plaint, was that she purchased two houses belonging to Defendant No. 1 under a sale deed, dated 8 -1 -1949, executed by Defendant No. 1; that at the time of the transfer of the said houses, Defendant No. 2 was a tenant of Defendant No. 1 but from 8 -1 -1949, Defendant No. 1 and Anwar Khan Mahbub Khan, both became the tenants of the Plaintiff; that both the Defendants orally agreed to pay Rs. 250 - per month as rent of both the houses from 8 -1 -1949 and paid Rs. 1,500 - in advance as rent for six months to the Plaintiff through her husband; that thereafter, they failed to pay any rent to the Plaintiff and so, she obtained permission of the Rent Controller, Bhopal, to file a suit for ejectment of the Defendants. The Plaintiff ultimately brought a suit for ejectment of the Defendants and for arrears of rent as, already stated.

(3.) THE trial Court framed 17 issues covering these please As we are presently going to show, most of those issues do not arise for consideration before us. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri B.L. Seth, stated that the agreement of tenancy with Defendant No. 2 was not proved and it was a fact that Defendant No. 2 had vacated the premises occupied by Anwar Khan Mahbub Khan after the termination at his tenancy on 28 -2 -1951 much before the institution of the suit. The Plaintiff -Appellant therefore, did not press any claim against Defendant No. 2. Many of the issues which concern Defendant No 2, therefore, do not survive for determination;