- (1.) S.P.Srivastava
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the decree of ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation. passed against the petitioners by the Judge Small Cause Courts. Jhansi, respondent No. 2, which was affirmed by the revisional court dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, they have now approached this Court seeking relief for quashing of the impugned decree. The brief facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case are that the plaintiff respondent had filed a suit against the defendants-petitioners with the allegations that the shop in dispute had been let out to Nandram Sharma at a rent of Rs. 75/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 200/- with effect from. 1-12-1978- The defendant tenant Nandram Sharma fell in arrears of rent from 1-12-1978 to 29-7-1979 and did not pay the same despite - the service of the notice of payment and quit, which was issued in accordance with the provision under section 20 (2) fa) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') and was duly served. It was further alleged that Nandram Sharma had sub-let the premises in dispute to Ram Autar, defendant No. 2. This suit was therefore, a suit on the grounds envisaged under section 20 (2) (a) and (e) of the Act. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants asserting that Nandram Sharma was the sole tenant of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and not Rs. 200/- as alleged. It was further asserted that defendant No. 2 Ram Autar was a relation of Nandram Sharma and not sub-tenant or partner in the shop. It was further asserted that Ram Autar was working in a capacity of a servant of Nandram Sharma. It was further asserted that after receipt of the notice, Nandram Sharma had so money order for Rs. 675- towards arrears of rent for the period 1-12-19/ to 31-8-1979 calculated at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month, which was refuses by the plaintiff and since the rent due had been refused by the plaintiff and since the rent due had been tendered through money order, the question of default could not arise and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court after carefully considering the voluminous documentary and oral evidence on record came to the conclusion that the case set up by the defendants about tendering the arrears of rent through the money order was not acceptable. It further recorded a finding that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs about the enhancement of the rent from Rs. 75/- to 200/- per month on 1-12-1978 was worthy of credence and reliable and accordingly held that the rate of rent in respect of the shop in dispute had been enhanced from Rs. 75/- to Rs 200/- per month by mutual agreement THE trial court accepted the receipt dated 1-12-1978 as genuine which amply established the case of the plaintiff about the enhancement of the rate of rent from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 200/- by mutual agreement THE trial court further recorded a finding that Nandram Sharma defendant No 1 was running a shop at Tulsi Nagar. which was the only source of his livelihood. THE trial court further recorded a finding that the shop in dispute was in exclusive possession of the defendant No 2 THE trial court further found that on 29-3-1978, a partnership as contemplated under section 4 of the Partnership Act had come into extence with Nandram Sharma and Ram Autar as partners. THE case set up by the defendants that Ram Autar was a servant of Nandram Sharma was therefore, disbelieved by the trial court. It came to the conclusion that Nandram Sharma was doing his business in Tulsi Nagar and had in the garb of the partnership sub-let the premises in dispute in favour of Rami Autar. In the circumstances. therefore, the trial court held the shop in dispute to be vacant as contemplated under the Act. On the above findings the suit was decreed as claimed. The aforesaid decree was challenged in revision but without any success. The revisional court endorsed all the findings recorded by the trial court and up held the decree passed by it. The revisional Court clearly observed that in the instant case, Nandram Sharma, the defendant No. 1 had tot been able to prove that defendant No 2, Ram Autar was bis servant or his relation and determined the status of Ram Autar to be that of a subtenant.;