NAZROO Vs. LALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE purport to be two cross second appeals, which arise out of a suit filed by Lalman for the ejectment of Nazroo from two shops, numbered 3 and 4, situate at Ant, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 424/S/ as.arrears of rent. Lalman's case was that he had leased out these shops to Nazroo on payment of rent and that Nazroo had defaulted with the rent. Consequently, Lalman claimed a decree for the ejectment of Nazroo and for arrears of rent mentioned above.

(2.) NAZROO , while admitting that he had taken shop No. 3 on rent from Lalman, contended that he was not liable to ejectment at the instance of Lalman, because, according to him, Lalman was not the proprietor of the shop. As regards shop No. 4, he denied that he had taken it on rent from the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment as far as shop No. 3 was concerned, along with a sum of Rs. 60/8/ as arrears of rent. The suit was, however, dismissed as far as shop No. 4 was concerned, since, in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had taken it from him on rent.

(3.) AT today's hearing, I called upon learned counsel for the parties to satisfy me that the appeals, in fact, were competent. I pointed out that the plaintiff had sued the defendant in the capacity of a landlord vis a vis his tenant. The suit was not based on title. Therefore, the subject matter of the suit consisted only of the tenancy rights over the two shops in question. It may be that the market value of the two shops is Rs. 2,509/ or more. But it can hardly be said that the tenancy rights in question were worth Rs. 2,500/ , or the decree of the District Judge involves directly some claim to, or question respecting, property of like value. In this connection, it is significant to note that, according to the plaintiff, shop No. 3 was let out at Rs. 18/ P. M. and shop No. 4 at Rs. 9/ P. M. The suit was valued at Rs. 808/8/ (consisting of Rs. 384/ as the valuation of the ejectment relief, representing 12 months rent plus Rs. 424/8/ arrears of rent). The appeal to the District Judge was valued at Rs. 326/8/ . It is thus abundantly clear that the subject matter of the suit consisted of (a) the defendant's liability to ejectment and (b) his liability to pay arrears of rent All that the learned District Judge has done is to "uphold the decree of the trial .Court, where " by the defendant was to be ejected from shop No. 3 and to pay Rs. 60 8 0 as arrears of rent. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the decree of the District Judge goes any further. Nor would it be reasonable to hold that his decree involves directly some claim to, or question respecting, any other right in the' property. I consider that it would be over straining the scope and purview of paragraph 32 (1) (a) (ii), Himchal Pradesh (Courts) Order, if we were to say that the decree of the District Judge affects any other rights in the shops. It is noteworthy that the District Judge has clearly expressed his opinion that the question of title was not involved in the suit and should not have been investigated by the Subordinate Judge.