- (1.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted SCC Suit No. 40 of 2010 against the second respondent Hriday Narain Upadhyaya (Defendant no. 1) and the petitioner (Defendant no. 2) for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. According to the plaint case, defendant no. 1 was tenant of a residential building situated at Santosh Nagar, Bareilly, bearing Municipal No. 1578 (Old No. 668) on the basis of an allotment in his favour. The plaintiff-respondent claimed to have purchased the demised premises by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.7.2006 from Smt Kamini Agarwal, the owner and landlord of the premises. The second defendant, the petitioner herein, was stated to have been inducted as a sub-tenant, without the consent of the plaintiff. The relief for ejectment was claimed on the ground that there was default in payment of rent and subletting, without the permission of the landlord.
(2.) The first defendant, who was the tenant-in-chief, did not contest the proceedings. A written statement was filed by the petitioner admitting that the demised premises was allotted to the first defendant. He further admitted in the written statement that he is occupying the demised premises, but it was contended that his status is not that of sub-tenant, but as a care taker on behalf of the tenant-in-chief. It was further pleaded that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit for ejectment, at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent, was not maintainable.
(3.) The trial court framed various points from determination. While deciding point no.1 regarding relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, the trial court primarily relied on the statement of the petitioner in holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff-respondent and defendant no. 1. The relevant part of the finding of the trial court is as under :- ;