- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court dated 6-2-1991 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the decision of the trial court vide order dated 5-12-1995.
(2.) THE property in dispute is known as 'cow shed,' THE plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that his father was a tenant of the disputed accom modation at a monthly rent of Rs. 37. 50 and after the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner stopped payment of monthly rent from January 1987. THE plaintiff sent a composite notice dated 4th July 1988 demanding arrears of rent-with effect from 1st January 1987 and terminating his tenancy. This notice was received by the petitioner on 8th Julv 1988. He did not comply with the notice, Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed Suit ;4o. 11 of 1988 in the court of Judge Small Causes, District Nainital. The petitioner filed written statement and denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and plaintiff or his father. It was alleged that the land was leased out by the Cantonment Board in the name of his grand-father on 1-12-1926. After his death his father succeeded to him. He is one of the co-lessees of the land in question. The accommodation in question cannot be treated as an accommodation existing on this land and the suit is not cognizable by the Judge Small Causes Court. The trial court recorded find ing that the grand-father of the petitioner had executed a deed of transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 on 7-12-1953 and thereafter Cantonment Board ex ecuted a lease in his favour on 28-3-1957 and again on 1-12-1986. The properly has been sold by the grand-father of the petitioner in the name of plaintiff-respondent. He became the owner of the property in question. It was further found that the father of the petitioner was occupying it in the capacity of tenant and the petitioner had inherited the tenancy rights. He failed to pay the arrears of rent after the receipt of the notice and, therefore, he was liable for ejectment as he had com mitted default in payment of arrears of rent and was also liable to pay the rent as alleged by respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed revision against the said judgment and it has been affirmed by respondent No. 1. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the lease was admittedly granted in the name of Allah Bakhsh, grand-father of the petitioner, on 1-12-1926 for a period of 30 years. The lease was executed by the Secretary of State for India in Council by virtue of Rules made under Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 as the Cantonment Authority of the Nainital Cantonment. This lease deed was for a term of 30 years from 1st December, 1926. The lease could be renewed after expiry of 30 years. Clause (8) of the lease puts a condition that the lessee shall not assign transfer or underlet the premises hereby demised. It reads as follows: " (8) (Not to assign transfer or underlet the premises hereby demised or any part thereof without the consent in writing of the Cantonment Authority/military Estates Of ficer and) upon every assignment transfer or sub-lease of the premises hereby demised or any part thereof or within one calendar month thereafter to deliver a notice of such assignment transfer or sub-lease to the Military Estates Officer setting forth the names and descriptions of the parties to every such assignment transfer or sub-lease and the particulars and effect thereof. " It is admitted that Allah Bakhsh executed a registered sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 7-12- 1953. The deed of transfer recites that the transfer is being made with the permission of the Cantonment Board. The permission of transfer has been sanctioned by the Cantonment Board, Nainital vide resolution No. 11 dated 14th April, 1953. Subsequent to this execution of sale-deed the Can tonment Board, Nainital executed a lease-deed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 28-3-1957. The lease was again renewed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 1. 12. 1986 for a term of 30 years.;