Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for the applicants and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) A suit for rent and ejectment was filed by the respondents against the applicants after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act by notice dated 9.10.2000. The rent of the premises was alleged to be Rs. 2158.33 and provisions of Act 13/1972 are therefore, not applicable to the building in dispute. The case of the plaintiff-respondents was that the defendant has not paid the rent from 1.6.2000 to 9.11.2000. The suit was contested by the applicant with the averments that Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. However, the rate of rent of Rs. 2158.33 was not disputed. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of plaintiff Nos. 8 to 10. The plaintiff No. 10 was M/s. Hansh Construction, a partnership firm.
(3.) The Judge Small Cause Court framed several issues. Issue No. 1 was whether plaintiff No. 10 Ms/. Hansh Construction, was the landlord and whether their exist relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff No. 10 and defendants. Issue No. 2 was whether the plaintiffs were landlords or not. Issue No. 3 was about the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether tenancy was terminated thereby. Issue No. 4 was whether the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, Issue No. 5 was whether plaintiff No. 10 was not a firm within the meaning of Indian Partnership Act and whether the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 and 9 were not its partners. Issue No. 6 relates to damages. Issue No. 7 was whether Act 13 of 1972 was applicable over the building in dispute. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiffs except issue No. 6, which was partly answered in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim of damages at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- was turned down and damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month were granted.;