S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is Defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment and for payment of certain amount as mesne profits.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Respondent instituted the present suit on the allegation that he was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute which was the first and second floor of house No. 88/320, Nala Road, Kanpur. He alleged that he was in occupation of this accommodation on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. The Defendant No. 1 Inayat Ullah was a co -worker along with Plaintiff Muzaffar Husain in Victoria Mills, Kanpur. Since the relations between the two were amicable Inayat Ullah was permitted to occupy a portion of the second floor as licensee for a period of two months since his wife was expecting a child. The case of the Plaintiff was that after the expiry of these two months the Plaintiff wanted to get back possession from Inayat Ullah in accordance with the terms of the agreement that he had made at the time of occupying the accommodation, but Inayat Ullah on one pretext or the other continued to occupy the accommodation since according to him he could not arrange for another suitable accommodation. It appears that during the period of his occupation in collusion with the landlord he managed to obtain an allotment order in his favour. When the Plaintiff was apprised of this fact he approached the RC and EO but to no effect. Consequently the present suit for the ejectment and mesne profits was filed in the civil court. This suit was contested by Inayat Ullah who denied the alleged licence. He stated that Muzaffar Husain was not the tenant of the accommodation in the second floor. According to him Muzaffar Husain was a tenant only of two rooms in the first floor for which he used to pay Rs. 25/ - per month. It was said that out of those two rooms he let out one to Inayat Ullah. According to him the landlord used to receive directly rent from him in pursuance of the agreement between the tenant and the landlord and Inayat Ullah. He further alleged that Muzaffar Husain had forcibly turned him out of the room which had been given in his occupation by him and thereafter the landlord sympathised with him and allowed him to occupy the second floor which was in his (landlord's) occupation and thereafter he got that occupation regularised through the RC and EO by obtaining an allotment order in his favour.
(3.) THE first court accepted the defence contention and dismissed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate court believed the Plaintiff's version and has decreed the suit.;