- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter- alia, challenging the judgment and order dated 7-12- 1981 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur (respondent No. 1) and the judgment and order dated 13-3-1978 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur (respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to a portion in the first floor of House No. 18/47, THE Mall Kanpur. THE said portion has hereinafter referred to as "the disputed accommodation". It appears that the petitioners filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. against Devendra Nath Saxena (hereinafter also referred to as "the defendant"), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/3. The said suit was registered as Suit No. 2689 of 1968. It was inter-alia, alleged by the petitioners in the said suit that the petitioners were the owners of the said house No. 18/47, The Mall Kanpur and the defendant in the suit was tenant in the disputed accommodation in the said house at a monthly rent of Rs. 52 besides Bhumi and Bhawan Kar, and that the defendant in the suit without consent of the petitioners illegally sub-let a portion of the disputed accommodation to one Jawahar rendering himself liable for ejectment; and that the defendant in the suit fell in arrears of rent; and that a composite notice dated 25-6-1968 of demand of rent and of determination of tenancy was served upon the defendant in the suit on 26-7-1968 but the defendant did not comply with the notice, and instead, sent a reply with false and frivolous allegations.
(3.) THE said suit was contested by the defendant (predecessor-in- interest of the respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/3 ). It was, inter- alia, alleged by the defendant in the written statement that in October, 1954 a portion of the first floor accommodation was demolished thereby depriving the defendant of the valuable rights and amenities, and a further portion was got demolished through the agency of the Municipal Authority, Kanpur, thereby depriving the defendant of a major portion of the accommodation and the defendant became liable to pay only a proportionate part of the rent and was not liable to pay the rent at the original contractual rate of Rs. 52 per month. It was, inter-alia, further alleged that the petitioners were not entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 52 as they had illegally deprived the defendant of the use of major portion of the disputed accommodation and they were entitled to only proportionate rent which could in no case be in excess of the half of the agreed rent that is Rs. 26 per month only from the date when a part of the accommodation was got demolished; and that the defendant was not in arrears of rent. THE allegation made by the petitioners regarding sub- letting was denied. It was, inter- alia, further stated by the defendant that the suit was barred by the U. P. Act No. III of 1947 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said Suit No. 2689 of 1968 was dismissed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur by his judgment and order dated 9-10-1976. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which, was registered as Civil Revision No. 430 of 1976.;