PRAVINCHAND HATHIBHAI Vs. SHANKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants -tenants, against the decree for their ejectment from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff -landlord No.4 -genuinely requires the accommodation for starting his own business and that he is not in occupation of any other accommodation in the city of Satna for that purpose.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have decreed the suit, inter alia, holding -

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the house in suit had been purchased by Basantlal, the father of the plaintiffs, and in the absence of any partition or registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiffs, his sons, the sons could not acquire any title to it to make them the landlords of the defendants in respect of the suit premises. The learned Additional District Judge has correctly pointed out that the contention confuses between the ownership and the landlordship. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the fact whether in law title to the suit premises passed from the father to the sons under an arrangement made by them whereunder possession of the suit house was transferred to the sons who were also made the landlords of it by making the tenants of the suit premises attorn to them. The learned Additional District Judge has found that the defendants had duly attorned to the landlordship of the plaintiffs to whom they were also paying rent in respect of the premises thereafter. The plaintiffs were, therefore, rightly held to be the landlords of the defendants in respect of the suit premises and no exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on the point.