- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is defendant's writ petition who claims himself to be very old licensee of main tenant Dwarika Prasad Bhatnagar (DP. Bhat nagar) hence immune from eviction. Respondent No. 2 landlady Smt. Sharda Devi filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against petitioner claiming him to be the tenant. Eviction was sought on the ground of default. Suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 493 of 1984. JSCC, Meerut through judgment and decree dated 6-3-1991 dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree landlady respon dent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 85 of 1991. VIII A. D. J. , Meerut through judg ment and order dated 12-2-1993, al lowed the revision, set-aside the judg ment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE suit for eviction was filed only in respect of part of tenanted ac commodation on trie ground that plain tiff had purchased only part of the tenanted accommodation. Such a suit is quite maintainable by virtue of Sec tion 109 of Transfer of Property Act, ac cording to which if less - transfers part of the tenanted prop, rty the transferee possess all his rights. Petitioner pleaded that R. P. Bhatnagar son of D. P. Bhatnagar was the main tenant and he being the rela tion of D. P. Bhatnagar was residing as his licensee for 40 years and as R. R Bhatnagar was not impleaded in the suit hence suit was bad. Plaintiff purchased the property from Harish Chandra Goyal and his wife Vimla Goyal through registered sale-deed dated 8-9-1983. According to the plaint rate of rent was Rs. 100 per month. Trial Court had held that relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant was not proved.
(3.) REVISICNAL Court held that defendant could not even give the name of wife of D. P. Bhatnagar who ac cording to him was his father's real sister. Revisional Court also held that defendant stated that his age was about 50 years hence 40 years before he would be of 10 years old hence it was not possible for him to take the house in dispute as licencee. Revisional Court also observed that defendant could not give any period (month, year, weather) when house in dispute was given on licence to him. Even if the version of the defen dant that he was licensee and close relation of tenant is accepted, then he becomes agent of the tenant for all pur poses and service of notice of termina tion of tenancy upon him and filing suit for eviction against him cannot be said to be illegal. The plea of defendant that chief tenant has not been given any notice and has not been impleaded in the suit, can be taken only by the chief tenant.;