VISHWA NATH Vs. KHALIFA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHALIFA Giri-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for ejectment of defendants Tribeni Parshad, Vishwanath and Uttam Chand, from a plot including four rooms standing thereon and open space lying in front thereof, fully described in the heading of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Khalifa Giri as owner of the suit land leased out the same to Uttam Chand aforesaid for building residential quarters. The lease commenced on October 19, 1953 and the yearly rent was Rs. 9/-. According to the lease deed, Uttam Chand could remain tenant over the suit land up to October 19, 1973. Uttam Chand built four residential rooms in the land and initially occupied the same himself. Subsequently, he sublet the same to different persons and ultimately to defendants Tribeni Parshad and Vishwanath, named in the plaint. The subletting was not with the consent of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. After October 19, 1973, the lease in favour of defendant No. 3 came to an end and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 became entitled to eject him. The rights of defendants 1 and 2 who were sub-tenents of defendant No. 3 described in the plaint are also coterminous with the rights of defendant No. 3 and so, the plaintiff was entitled to eject all the defendants. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had purchased the constructions raised by Uttam Chand from him and so, he was now owner of the entire disputed property. Tribeni Prashad and Vishwanath aforesaid on demand refused to vacate the disputed premises although Uttam Chand agreed to the same. Ultimately, the suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Khalifa Giri.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No.1, that is, Tribeni Parshad during the pendency of the suit compromised the case with the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 vide Compromise Deed, Exhibit PA. His statement was also recorded by the Court on January 19, 1977. According to the Compromise, the suit was to be decreed against defendant No.1. He was in possession of half portion of the disputed property which he agreed to vacate under the compromise. Defendant No. 2 Vishwanath who is the appellant now in this Appeal, contested the suit.