BHUPAT HIRACHAND Vs. CHOONILAL CHUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants before us in these two appeals were the plaintiffs in the court below in the corresponding suits. The suits were for a declaration that the appellants, who were originally sub-tenants in respect of the disputed premises, had become direct tenants under the landlords-respondents.

(2.) THE suits have been dismissed by the learned trial Judge and hence these appeals by the plaintiffs. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and they are as follows:

(3.) THE municipal premises No. 65, Canning Street, of which the disputed premises form parts, were leased out to one Taher Ali by the landlords respondents on November 9, 1957 for a period of 21 years. The lessee is defendant No. 3 in the present suits and the landlords are defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The lease was to commence on and from October 1, 1957. On May 20, 1958, defendant no. 3 is alleged, to have leased out the disputed premises and created sub-tenancies in respect of them in favour of the present plaintiffs-appellants. On July 17, 1958, defendants nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment against defendant no. 3 on the ground of forfeiture of the latter's lease for non-payment of rent and taxes and for non-repairing of the disputed premises, which constituted breaches of the lessee's covenants under the corresponding lease. That suit was filed on the Original Side of this Court and, on september 19, 1958, an ex-parte decree was obtained therein by defendants nos. 1 and 2 against defendant no. 3.