- (1.) Ghanshyam Das Gupta, predecessor-in-title of the respondents 1 to 8 and 10 to 13, instituted SCC suit No. 15 of 1995 against the petitioners (defendants 1 and 2 respectively), Kamal Kishore Sharma (defendant No. 3 and respondent 14 herein) and Sharma Gas Chulha Centre (defendant No. 4 and respondent 9 herein) for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The suit was founded on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting of demised premises by the petitioners to defendant Nos. 3 and 4, change of user and breach of the terms of the registered agreement of tenancy. According to the plaint case, the demised premises was let out to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under a registered lease agreement dated 1.6.1982 for carrying on a business of Arms and Ammunitions. Under the lease agreement, the aforesaid defendants were not entitled to sublet the premises. However, in breach of clause 3 of the agreement and also without taking any permission from the District Magistrate or the plaintiff, the demised premises has been sub let to a partnership firm, defendant No. 4 in which the tenants also made their real brother Kamal Kishore Sharma a partner. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, a sub-tenancy has come into existence within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, The Act. The tenancy of the demised premises was determined by serving of notice and since the defendants have failed to vacate and consequently, the suit was instituted.
(2.) The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement in which it was denied that there was default in payment of rent. It was further stated that the petitioners have complied with the provisions of section 20 (4) of the Act. The petitioners admitted that in the demised premises, they are carrying on the business of selling and repairing cooking gas burner in the name and style of M/s. Sharma Gas Chulha Centre. However, they denied that any subletting had taken place.
(3.) The trial court framed various points for determination. It held that the notice determining the tenancy is valid and was duly served on the defendants. On point No. 2, trial court held that there was wilful default in payment of rent for a period of more than 4 months and the amount as contemplated under section 20(4) of the Act was not duly deposited on the first date of hearing. The trial court further held that there has been a change of user of the demised premises in violation of the terms and conditions stipulated under the registered agreement of tenancy. While deciding point No. 4, regarding subletting, the trial court held that it is not in dispute between the parties that initially the premises was let out by means of a registered lease agreement to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for running a business of Arms and Ammunitions. Subsequently, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 formed a partnership firm with their real brother, defendant No. 3 in the name of defendant No. 4 and started carrying on a new business which in view of provision of section 25 of the Act, would amount to subletting. In view of such findings, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment was decreed by the trial court.;