PARWATI DEVI Vs. SHRIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment, which has been decreed by both courts below on the ground that the defendant had ' sublet the premises in dispute.

(2.) THE plaintiff -landlords filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant -tenant from the suit premises, which consists of a shop in which a flour mill has been installed. The claim for ejectment was based on two grounds, viz. firstly, that the landlords had bonafide and reasonable personal necessity for the suit premises and secondly on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises to one Jagdambalal. So far as the first ground of ejectment is concerned both the courts below have given a finding against the plaintiffs and the said ground has not been relied upon before me in this appeal.

(3.) ANOTHER argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendant: appellant is that during the pendency of the first appeal one of the plaintiffs Ramchander had entered into a compromise with the defendant Gopi Kishan. The suit was filed by two persons viz. Shreepal and Ramchander as co -landlords, and even if one of the landlords had compromised the matter in dispute with the tenant -defendant, the decree for eviction cannot be set aside. At best the suit could be dismissed so far as Ramchander is concerned, who had consented to the dismissal of the suit and has entered into a compromise with the defendant. Shreepal did not give his consent either to the withdrawal of the suit or for setting aside the decree for ejectment. As a co -landlord he is entitled to get a decree of ejectment on the ground of subletting. The first appellate court rightly held that the decree for ejectment cannot be set aside merely because of the compromise deed presented by Ramchander plaintiff. The view taken by the first appellate court appears to be right and although the suit filed by Ramchander plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as compromised, the suit for ejectment filed by Shreepal has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court. The decree in favour of Shreepal is maintained while that in favour of Ramchander is set aside.