- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. These three writ petitions arise out of the same judgment passed by J. S. C. C. Kanpur Nagar in S. C. C. Suit No. 454 of 1979 decreed on 24-8-1987. All the three sets of the petitioners filed separate revisions which were dismissed by common judgment dated 30-11-1988 by V-Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) SMT. Munni Begum, landlady is contestingrespondent in all the writ petitions. She purchased the house containing the portion in dispute i. e. second floor accommodation from its previous owner landlord Hussain Bux in the year 1969. After serving notice of terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent on Rahim Bux, petitioner in third writ petition, Munni Begum filed suit against Rahim Bux alone for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent (S. C. C. Suit No. 454 of 1979 ). The notice dated 19- 10-1978 was served upon Rahim Bux on 21-10-1978. Landlady claimed that rate of rent was Rs. 70/- per month. The grounds of ejectment pleaded in the plaint were the arrears of rent and sub-letting. Rahim Bux pleaded that initially he and Abdul Aziz, petitioner in the first writ petition were tenants of the accommodation in dispute i. e. second floor accommodation at the rate of Rs. 35/- each (i. e. Rs. 70/- per month in total) that rent was paid by both of them separately but receipts were issued only in the name of Rahim Bux showing the rate of rent as Rs. 70/ -. It was further pleaded that in the year 1972 with the consent of the landlord Rahim Bux shifted on the ground floor which had fallen vacant and portion vacated by him was occupied as tenant by Chhanga and Abul Hasan, petitioners in second writ petition, at the rent of Rs. 17. 50 per month each even though rent receipts continued to be issued in favour of Rahim Bux at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. It is interesting to note that Chhanga is son of Rahim Bux himself. Abdul Aziz and Abul Hasan also appear to be very close relatives of Rahim Bux. Lateron in the suit Chhanga, Abul Hasan and Abdul Aziz were also impleaded as defendants. The trial Court/additional J. S. C. C. , Kanpur held that in fact Rahim Bux alone was the tenant of the second floor and he was admittedly not occupying the accommodation in dispute (i. e. second floor of the house) hence sub-letting by him to defendants 2 to 4 stood proved and that Rahim Bux was also in arrears of rent. The trial Court in recording the findings of sub-letting placed reliance upon the facts that even after 1972 rent receipts were issued only in the name of Rahim Bux and in the assessment records of the Nagar Nigam defendants 2 to 4 were never shown as occupants. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit on 24-8-1987. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree three revisions were filed. The revision of Abdul Aziz was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 115 of 1987 and that of Chhanga as S. C. C. Revision No. 117 of 1987 and that of Rahim Bux as S. C. C. Revision No. 124 of 1987. V-Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through common judgment and order dated 30-11-1988 dismissed all the revisions and confirmed the findings of the trial Court. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties in all the three writ petitions.
(3.) THE main point which has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that prior to filing of the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition, landlady Munni Begum had filed a release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Prescribed Authority while dismissing the release application held that there was no sub-letting hence the said findings operate as res judicata. The release application filed by landlady under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was registered as rent Case No. 87 of 1978 and was decided by Munsif, Hawali/prescribed Authority, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 5-3-1983. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure 6 to the third writ petition. In the said release application, ejectment was sought from ground floor and second floor accommodation. In the said release application it was specifically pleaded that Rahim Bux had sub-let the second floor accommodation to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. 2 of the 3 petitioners in I and II writ petitions. Rahim Bux and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the said release application took exactly similar pleas in the said release application as were later on taken in the suit-giving rise to the instant writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 of the said release application got themselves impleaded in the release application as in the initial/original release application they were not made party. The Prescribed Authority in its judgment held that on the basis of evidence it was established without any dispute that respondents 2 and 3 were in occupation of the second floor accommodation as tenants and not as sub tenants of respondent No. 1. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority held that the need was not bona fide and balance of comparative hardship also lay in favour of the tenant, consequently release application was rejected. No appeal appears to have been filed against the said judgment of the Prescribed Authority.;