BHULLAN Vs. BABU RAM
LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-45
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 09,1965

BHULLAN Appellant
VERSUS
BABU RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EXPRESS ESTATES LIMITED V. MODERN FURNISHING HOUSE [REFERRED]
A.G. DASS V. T. R.O. LUCKNOW [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The short point for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether a sub-tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The dispute between the parties relates to a certain shop at Muzaffarnagar. One Jai Prakash is the owner of the shop. Babu Ram is the tenant-in-chief of the shop. Bhullan is Babu Ram's sub-tenant. The Plaintiff served upon the Defendant a notice to quit. But the Defendant did not vacate. Babu Ram Plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit against Bhullan Defendant for his ejectment. The Plaintiff also claimed Rs. 46/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 14/-as damages. The Defendant pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of any permission from the District Magistrate Under Section 3 of the Act. The learned Additional Munsif of Muzaffarnagar, who tried the suit, upheld the Defendant's plea that the claim for ejectment was not maintainable in the absence of permission Under Section 3 of the Act. The court passed in Plaintiff's favour a decree for Rs. 46/- only for arrears of rent. The remaining claim was dismissed. When the matter went up in appeal, the learned second Additional Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar took a different view as regards the scope of Section 3 of the Act. He held that a sub-tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Act. So the appeal by the Plaintiff was allowed. The Plaintiff's claim was decreed in its entirety. Bhullan Defendant has come to this Court in Second Appeal.
(2.)When the case was taken up by a learned Single Judge of this Court, he found that the question whether a sub-tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Act was important. He, therefore, referred the case to a Division Bench.
(3.)The terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' have been defined in Clauses (c) and (g) of Section 2 of the Act. These definitions were altered by Section 3 of the U.P. Amending Act No. XVII of 1954, in Clause (c) the words "of such person" were substituted for the words "of the landlord and tenant in relation to his subtenant". Again, the words "and includes any person holding or occupying any accommodation as a sub-tenant" were deleted from Clause (g). The learned Civil Judge expressed the view that, after amendment of the two definitions, it is impossible to hold that the term 'tenant' defined by Clause (g) of Section 2 includes a sub-tenant. On the other hand, Mr. K.C. Agarwal, appearing for the Defendant Appellant, has urged that, by those amendments certain words were deleted as surplusage.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.