- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Present revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th July, 2000 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Allahabad in SCC Suit No. 11 of 1993, whereby it decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendants and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month for the period 1st May, 1992 to 31st August, 1992, and thereafter, for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- per month alongwith the cost of the notice till the date of delivery of the possession of the disputed shop.
(2.) SMT. Urmila Devi, opposite party No. 1 instituted SCC Suit No. 11 of 1993 against SMT. Pushpa Kapoor (Opposite Party No. 2 in the present revision) and SMT. Sheela Kapoor, who died during pendency of suit and her heirs and legal representatives were substituted. The present revision is on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of SMT. Sheela Kapoor. Suit giving rise to the above revision was filed by Smt. Urmila Devi, claiming herself owner and landlady of the disputed shop 471, Katra, Allahabad for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of Smt. Pushpa Kapoor and Smt. Sheela Kapoor on the pleas inter alia that she let out the disputed shop to Smt. Pushpa Kapoor under a rent note, details of which have been annexed alongwith the plaint on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/ -. The shop was taken by defendant No. 1, namely, Smt. Pushpa Kapoor to run the cloth business under the name and style of M/s. Kapoor Lattoo Wala. The defendant No. 1 defaulted in making payment of rent since 1st May, 1992. Defendant No. 1 has surreptitiously and illegally has sub-letted the said shop to one of her close relation, Smt. Sheela Kapoor, defendant No. 2. A notice dated 20th March, 1993 demanding the entire arrears of rent from 1st May, 1991 to 28th February, 1993 was served on both the defendants asking them to vacate the disputed shop and deliver its peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff on the expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendants failed to vacate the disputed shop and they have also failed to pay arrears of rent, hence the suit was filed. It was further pleaded that in response to the aforesaid notice a sum of Rs. 13,200/- was remitted by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff towards rent up to March, 1993. The plaintiff being semi- illiterate lady accepted the money orders sent by defendant No. 2, though the defendant No. 2 was not authorized to send the arrears of rent through six money orders being sub- tenant. The plaintiff immediately returned the aforesaid amount through six money orders on 23-4-1993 to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement stating that the shop in question was taken by her on rent for doing the family business in partnership with the members of her joint family, namely, Smt. Sheela Kapoor, Raj Kapoor and Madhu Kapoor. The said firm was dissolved w. e. f. 2nd May, 1984 and its vacant possession was handed over to the plaintiff in the first week of May, 1984 and she ceased to be a tenant of the disputed shop thereafter and has no concern with the business carried on from the said shop and is not liable to pay any rent for the period May, 1984 onwards.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2, Smt. Sheela Kapoor in her separate written statement stated that the shop in question was initially let out to M/s. New Kapoor Lattoo Wala through Smt. Pushpa Kapoor, defendant No. 1 in the year 1980, wherein the members of the family, namely, Smt. Sheela Kapoor, Raj Kapoor and Madhu Kapoor carried on the business to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The said firm was dissolved w. e. f. 2nd May, 1984. The tenancy of the shop was surrendered by defendant No. 1, in favour of the plaintiff, who in turn let it out to defendant No. 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,100/- w. e. f. May, 1984, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- in the month of October, 1987 and thus, there was privy of contract in between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and there is no default in payment of rent. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court framed two points for determination in the suit. The first point is whether the defendants have defaulted in making payment of rent for the period 1st May, 1992 to 28th February, 1993 amounting to Rs. 12,600/- and the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,321/- from the defendants. The second point is whether the defendant No. 1 has sub-let the disputed shop to defendant No. 2 and as such the defendants are liable for eviction.;