ADITYA PRAKASH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand another sub-tenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.

(2.) IT is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramji das who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent on Rs. 16/- to Suryanand. In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sub-let to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds were relied upon for rejectment, viz default in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds relied upon by the plaintiffs, viz. default in payment of rent, sub letting and nuisance were proved and in this view of the matter he decreed the the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment against all the defendants. A decree for arrears of rent was also passed but that point is no more in dispute, and is not a subject-matter of this appeal.

(3.) I have carefully examined the contents of Ex. B. I. It is undoubtedly signed by the landlord Aditya Prakash, and the sub-tenant Suryanand. There is, however, nothing in it to indicate that the landlord had accepted Suryanand directly as his tenant. On the other hand, it is clearly mentioned therein that Suryanand had been admitted as a sub tenant by the tenant Ramjidas on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/ -. All that can be inferred from Exb. I. is that the landlord consented to Suryanand being admitted as a sub-tenant of Ramjidas. It is frankly conceded before me that ever since Ex. B. I was written, no rent was accepted by the plaintiffs from Suryanand. Ex. B. I does not bear the signatures of Ramjidas at all. It has, however, been strongly urged that in the circumstances of the case Ramjidas' tenancy qua the ground-floor must be deemed to have been terminated by implied surrender. I am, however, unable to accept this contention. A line of distinction must be drawn between a sub-tenant being admitted by the tenant with the consent of the landlord and a case where the original tenancy between the landlord and the tenant comes to an end and a fresh tenancy is created directly between the landlord and the sub tenant. It would not be correct to say that whenever a sub-tenant is inducted into the premises by the tenant with the consent of the landlord the tenancy of the original tenant must be deemed to have been determined by implied surrender. There must, of necessity be some thing more to indicate that the original tenancy came to an end and a fresh tenancy between the landlord and the sub-tenant came into existence. My conclusion therefore is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of Ex. B. I. alone no direct relationship of landlord and tenant can be said to have come into existence between the plaintiff and Suryanand.