R L JAIN Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and respondent No.1 filed the suit for eviction of his tenant respondent no.2 and impleaded appellant-defendant also party in the suit because of the reason that according to the plaintiff, the suit premises was let out by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 on monthly rent of Rs.200/- but the defendant no.1 sold his suit shop business to defendant no.2 and other defendants.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, to save their eviction from the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting, a partnership deed was prepared by the defendants. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that subsequent to creation of that sham partnership, the said partnership was dissolved and defendant no.2 alone was made proprietor of the firm. However, according to the plaintiff in terms of the partnership deed dated 1.2.1974 prepared by defendants, all the defendants were liable to pay the rent for the rented premises. The plaintiff submitted that the rent upto the period 28.2.1973 was paid to him by defendant no.1 but no rent was paid thereafter. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff got the possession of the suit property on 1.10.1974, therefore, the suit remained for recovery of arrears of rent only. Since the possession was delivered on 1.10.1974, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff remained for the rent from 1.3.1973 to 30.9.1974 which comes to Rs.3800/-. Defendant no.1 submitted written statement and stated that he entered into partnership with other defendants from 1.2.1974 and said partnership was dissolved on 1.5.1974. He also stated that the possession of the suit shop was delivered to the plaintiff and the defendant paid Rs.2800/- against the arrears of rent of Rs.3800/- to the plaintiff and he deducted Rs.1000/- from the said rent on account of repairing which was carried on in the suit shop by the defendants, therefore, no amount of rent is due in the defendants.

(3.) The remaining defendant-appellants also admitted that they were inducted as partners from 1.2.1974 and the partnership was dissolved on 1.5.1974. They also pleaded that Rs.2000/- was incurred for necessary repairs in the suit shop but for that the defendants will take appropriate action for recovery. They also admitted that possession was delivered to the landlord on 1.10.1974.