MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the instant writ petition has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Faizabad in Civil Revision No.241 of 1999, whereby the revision has been allowed and the cross objection filed by the dependents was rejected. The learned revisional court while setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.07.1999 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Faizabad, decreed the suit ex parte and directed the petitioner and opposite parties no.3 to 12 to vacate the disputed shop within two months.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the opposite party no.2 (now deceased) filed a suit for ejectement against the petitioner and the opposite parties no.3 to 12 on the ground that they have sublet the disputed shop to the petitioner and opposite party no.8 without the consent and permission of the opposite party no.2. It was asserted in the plaint that the original tenant of the shop in question was Roornmall who at the time of taking the shop on rent executed an agreement on 13.03.1946. After the death of Roornmall, his sons, namely, Hira Lal and Vidyadhar continued with the business and the rate of rent was Rs.100/ - per month. The opposite party no.2 who was land lady of the shop in question was residing at Jaipur since 1961. When she visited Faizabad, she found that Hira lal and Vidyadhar have divided the shop into two portions and have thus disfigured the same. She also found that one portion was sublet to the petitioner while the other portion was sublet to the opposite party no.8. The sons of Roormall, namely, Hira Lal and Vidyadhar had no connection with the sub tenant. The opposite party no.2 then issued a notice to the sons of Roornmall on 14.10.1980 which was served upon them on 15.10.1980.
(3.) THE petitioner and the respondents no.3 to 12 contested the suit and admitted the opposite party no.2 as the owner and the land lady of the shop in question. They also admitted having taken the disputed shop on rent by Roornmall. However, they admitted the partition of the business on the death of Roornmall and stated that the shop was partitioned by the sons of Roornmall and as per the mutual agreement, Hira Lal was the tenant. It was further stated that Hira Lal continued with the business of his late father for some time, but since his son had settled outside Faizabad and he was also not physically fit to run the business he in the year 1974, entered into partnership with Mussadi Lal and started business in the name of Prem Trading Company. He further stated that the permission to constitute the firm and start a new business was orally taken from the brother of the opposite party no.2 who used to realize the rent. He was having full knowledge that the business was being run in the name Prem Trading Company, but he did not object to it at any point of time. When the opposite party no.2 visited Faizabad, the rent was enhanced from Rs.75/ - to Rs.100/ - per month and thus there was implied permission to run the business. On these grounds, it was submitted that suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned Judge Small Causes framed four issues and while deciding issue no.1, the trial court found that Hira Lal and Vidyadhar sons of Roornmall had sublet the shop in question, but found that the notice sent to them was not a valid notice and on this ground the suit was dismissed. It also needs mention here that during the pendency of suit Hira Lal died and his widow and sons were substituted. The partner of the petitioner, namely, Mussadi Lal Agrwal also died and in his place the opposite parties no.6 and 7 were substituted.;