(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals arise cut of the same judgment of Mr. Justice Ram Labhaya, dated 4 -5 -56, by which he disposed of Second -Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 of 1054. The appeals two, different suits between, the same part relation to the same subject -matter, though .different reliefs. Second Appeal No. 37 of Vested to Title Suit No. 58 of 19G2, in which was a prayer for ejectment of the Defendant, while Second Appeal No. 38 of 1954 real Rent. Suit No. 20 of 1952, in which there for arrears of rent due, the two suits were tried and disposed of together in the Courts below. The trial Court dismissed the suits, but the appellate Court decreed. the same. The Second Appeals, therefore, arose out of those judgments. The learned Judge of this Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits, but he gave leave to prefer these appeals under the Letters Patent.
(2.) THE facts which are material are these. A certain premises which is the subject -matter of the suits, belonged originally to one Yusufur Rahman. It was in' occupation of the Defendants as tenants under him. In 1947, Yusufur Rahman sold the premises to Musst. Lachmi Agarwalini, mother of the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants continued in occupation of the premises as monthly tenants under Musst. Lachmi, who died in April, 1950, leaving behind the Plaintiffs, her sons, and several daughters. After her death, the Plaintiffs were mutated in respect of the lands over which the premises stand, It is alleged by the Plaintiffs the Defendant No. 1, representing the Defendants, on the death of Musst. Lachmi, attorned to them and was allowed to continue as a tenant under them. The Defendants as such, continued to was rent to the Plaintiffs until June, 1951, where after they made default in payment of rent. The Plaintiffs then, after serving a notice to quit on the Defendants, instituted the two suits in question, for ejectment: of the Defendants from the premises, and also for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. They claimed also that they required the premises for their own bona hide purposes.
(3.) THE Defendants contested the suits on various grounds. They challenged the Plaintiffs' right to sue as landlords. They also denied having defaulted in payment of rent and challenged the validity of tin, notice for eviction. Tho trial Court accepted the Defendants' pleas and dismissed the suits, essentially on the ground that the Plaintiffs were not competent to institute the suits and to recover any arrear rent on behalf of themselves alone. On appeal, the. appellate Court reversed that judgment. The findings of the lower appellate Court have been lucidly summarised in the judgment under appeal as follows: - (1) That there was an arrangement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, under which the Defendants undertook to pay rent to the Plaintiffs; (2) that the question of title in the case was not material; and (3) that the Defendants were estopped from pleading that the Plaintiffs had no title to the suit lands.