H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) BEING of opinion that the view expressed by this Court in the case ot V.K. Tandon v. Smt. G. Devi Rathor, 1976 ARC 752 and subsequently followed in the cases of Hira Lal Jasrapuri v. VIII Addl. District Judge, iy, 82 (1) ARC 117 and Gangu Narain v. IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1984 (1) ARC 342 requires reconsideration in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath : AIR 1976 SC 2335 Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak : AIR 1977 SC 1599 and Subhandu Prasad v. Kamala Bala Roy Chaudhary : AIR 1978 SC 835 a learned single Judge has referred this petition for decision by a larger Bench and this is how the matter has come up before us.
(2.) SHRI Thakurji Madan Mohan Lal Ji Maharaj and Gopal Lal Ji Birajman Mandir (hereinafter referred to as Thakurji) filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes for ejectment of Mool Chand Sharma (Petitioner) from the premises in suit and for recovery of Ks. 1970.68 as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation calculated at the rate of Rs. 125/ - per month, through its Muta -walli Prakash Chand. The Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the premises in dispute and alleged that Defendant Mool Chand was a tenant thereof on payment of Rs. 125/ - per month as rent. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was in arrears of rent and despite service of notices upon him, he neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises in suit.
(3.) DEFENDANT Mool Chand contested the suit and denied the right of Prakash Chand to maintain the same on behalf of Thakurji. He pleaded that Bankey Lal, father of Prakash Chand, used to realise the rent of the premises in question @ Rs. 45/ - per month through his son Prahlad Das (brother of Prakash Chand) and he continued to pay the same to Prahlad Das even after the death of Bankey Lal. According to him the entire rent stands paid up and the suit for his ejectment deserved to be dismissed.;