KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. GOMAND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS purports to be a second appeal by one Kailashchandra against an order of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, holding that a decree for ejectment obtained by Gomandram against the firm Rameshwardas Ram Gopal in respect of a shop was binding on him u/o. 21 R. 35 Code of Civil Procedure. THIS order was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Ganganagar.

(2.) GOMAND Ram let out the shop in dispute to the firm Rameshwardas Ram Gopal on I. 4. 57 for a period of one year. When it did not vacate the shop on the expiry of the period GOMAND Ram served a notice determining its tenancy and instituted a suit for ejectment on 27. 8. 59 on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises without his consent and on the ground that the tenant had neither paid rent nor tendered the amount due from it for more than 18 months. The tenant filed a written statement in which it admitted having sub-let the premises but alleged that it did so with the consent of the plaintiff. It was denied that rent was not tendered for any period. On the contrary it was asserted that it was regularly sent by money order, but that the plaintiff refused to accept. The tenant however expressed willingness to vacate the shop and a consent decree was passed against it. After the consent decree was passed half of the shop was vacated but the remaining half which was in possession of Kailash Chandra was not vacated. An execution application was filed by the decree-holder for the execution of the decree for eviction. On 5-12-59 he filed an application in which be alleged that Kailash Chandra had been let into possession by the judgment debtor and was liable to eviction under the decree. It may be mentioned here that in the plaint also it was alleged by the defendant that Kailash Chandra was one of the sub-tenants of the defendant. The court issued a notice to him to show cause why he should not be evicted in execution of the decree. Kailash Chandra then appeared and filed three objections on 20. 3. 60, 19. 3. 60 and 6. 4. 60 respectively in which it was alleged that he was a tenant of the decree-holder and was not liable to ejectment under the decree as he was not a party to it. The executing court fixed a date for the evidence of the parties. On that date Kailash Chandra did not produce any evidence to support the allegation which he had made in his objection. The case was argued out on the footing that Kailash Chandra was a sub-tenant. The trial court held that being a sub-tenant he was bound by the decree of ejectment passed against the tenant and ordered his eviction. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned' District Judge.

(3.) THE appellant is thus not entitled to any protection under the Act of 1950.