K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's writ petition arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiffs-opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 had filed suit against the defendant-petitioner and Shri Virendra Bahadur Singh on the allegations that Shri Virendra Bahadur Singh was a tenant of the room in question in premises no. 67/13, Daulatganj, Kanpur, at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. He was in arrears of rent from 13-10-1971 to 11-2-1973, hence a notice of demand and ejectment was served upon him and despite service of notice he did not pay rent, hence the suit. In paragraph 7 of the plaint (Annexure II attached with the writ petition) it has been averred that the defendant petitioner was asserting that he was tenant of the accommodation in dispute and that he had deposited rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but according to the plaintiffs-opposite parties he was not tenant of the accommodation in dispute and his possession was over the accommodation in dispute either with leave or licence of the defendant no. 1 (Virendra Bahadur Singh) or the defendant petitioner was sub-tenant. Since the opposite party no. 4 in the present writ petition was recognizing the claim of the defendant petitioner, hence he was impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the suit. The defence in the suit was that the defendant-petitioner was tenant of the accommodation in dispute and that Virendra Bahadur Singh had no concern with the accommodation is dispute on the date of the purchase of the permises no. 67/13 Daulat Ganj, Kanpur by the plaintiffs opposite parties. It was asserted that the defendant petitioner was really a tenant of the accommodation in question ; that he had deposited rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act. No. 13 of 1972 and nothing was due in respect of the accommodation in question ; that the plaintiffs' suit was malafide and collusive ; that the defendant petitioner was neither a licencee nor sub-tenant of Virendra Bahadur Singh; that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiffs-opposite parties as is evident from Annexure III attached with the writ petition. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit and aggrieved by their judgments the defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) BEFORE me the plaintiffs-opposite parties have been represented through Shri Raja Ram Agarwal, a senior advocate of this Court. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. I have heard the counsel for the parties at a great length.;