A.B.Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1975, passed by Sri G.B Singh then IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur, whereby he confirmed the trial court decree for eviction, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation while setting aside the decree for a sum of Rs. 500/- as damages for alleged demolition of a wall. Suit no 647 of 1968 was filed by the plaintiff- respondent alleging that it is a registered partnership firm, entiled to sue through one of its partners Ram Chandra Prasad Agarwal. The defendants- appellants were the plaintiffs-tenants of an ahata, bearing Municipal No 118/ 299, situated In Mohalla Kaushalpuri, Kanpur City on Rs. 85/- per month as rent They, however, sublet a portion of the premises in their tenancy to one Gurubux Singh alias Buxi Singh, resident of house No. 118/339 Kaushalpuri without the permission of the plaintiffs. The said subtenant has further constructed a new puce a wall, put a 'chhappar'. cattle troughs tethering pegs and tin shed in the premises in question. The defendants also demolished a portion of the eastern and southern boundary walls of the plaintiffs and misappropriated its bricks valued Rs. 500/-. They have also created nuisance by digging a big pit In the ahata and storing cow dung therein. On account of these acts of theirs the defendants have rendered themselves liable to ejectment. The plaintiff, accordingly, serued two notices, one dated 2-8-1968 and the other dated 24-8-1968, on the defendants. The notice dated 24-8- 1968 was served on 27-8-1968 and on expiry of one month period on 26-9-1968 the tenancy stood determined. The suit was, accordingly, filed for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and also Rs. 500/- as damages for misappropriation of the bricks.
(2.) THE defendants-appellants who contested the suit, admitted the factum of service of notice but denied rest of the contentions. THEy pleaded that the plaintiff, a firm, could not be the lessor of the premises in question nor has it any right to terminate the tenancy or file the suit for ejectment and damages etc. against the defendants. THEy denied having sublet any portion of the promises in question to Gurubux Singh and also denied having made any construction or material alterations in the premises in question or having committed nuisence. The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that the suit as framed is competent, the plaintiffs have proved the factum of subletting and nuisance and also the defendants having demolished a portion of the plaintiff's boundary wall and used its bricks in making new construction. The tenancy of the defendants having been terminated by a valid notice they are liable to ejectment. He. accordingly, decreed the plaintiff's suit in toto. The learned first appellate court in appeal confirmed the findings of the trial court on all the issues except the finding regarding alleged demolition of the boundary wall and causing damages to the extent of Rs. 500/- or having made material alterations. He, accordingly allowed the appeal in part, set aside the judgment and decree awarding Rs. 500/- as damages and confirmed the decree for eviction, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation Aggrieved the defendants have come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for both the sides have been heard and the record of the courts below has been perused. The questions raised in this appeal are that the plaintiff firm not being a juristic person was not competent to terminate the tenancy of the defendants or to file a suit for eviction arrears of rent etc. The finding of the courts below on the question of subletting is based on no evidence, whereas the finding regarding commission of nuisance is perverse. Now those may be examined.;