B.D.AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the judgment passed by the Court below decreeing the suit of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for judgment against the petitioner.
(2.) BOTH the trial Court as well as the Revision Court have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and that the petitioner was a defaulter. Having recorded these categorical findings, the suit has been decreed by the Courts below. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of fact recorded in regard to the rate of rent. He has also urged that the suit in question could not be decreed as partition had taken place in the family and Mahesh Chand Sahu alone became the owner of the property. In my opinion, both the submissions of the learned Counsel are without substance. I have examined the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Court below in regard to the rate of rent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the finding recorded by Court below.
(3.) IN regard to the second submission made by the learned Counsel, the suit had originally been filed by Moti Sahu, who was the karta of the family, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. Mahesh Chand Sahu was a member of the Joint Hindu family. During the pendency of the suit, the partition took place and Mahesh Chand Sahu became the exclusive owner of the shop. Since the tenancy was terminated also on behalf of Mahesh Chand Sahu, the suit could be continued by Mahesh Chand Sahu when he became the absolute owner after partition. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the decree passed in favour of Mahesh Chand Sahu was, in any manner, illegal. I agree with the view taken by the Revisional Court in this behalf.;