K.N. Seth, J. - (1.) The plaintiff- opposite party filled a suit for recovery of 1,950/- as arrears of rent, house taxes etc., for the period 1.1.1967 to 31.1.1970. Rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the accommodation in question was let out by his father Gopi Chand to Ram Lal Thukral on 27.8.51. As a result of partition in the family, the accommodation in question fell in the share of the plaintiff to whom Ram Lal paid rent for some time but thereafter refused to do so. It was alleged that defendants 2 and 3 namely, Sohan Lal and Bisham Deo, were also in possession of the shop although there was no contract of tenancy between them and the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Sohan Lal who claimed to be a partner of the firm Atlantic Sports which according to the defendants was the tenant of the premises. It was pleaded that the entire rent, taxes etc., for the period in question was deposited under section 7-C of Act III of 1947 in Misc. Case No. 56 of 1967 and the entire amount had been withdrawn by Gopi Chand, father of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to mention other pleas as they are not relevant for the decision of the present case.
(2.) The trial court dismissed the suit principally on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the landlord of the premises in question and that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties during the period for which the rent had been claimed. On revision by the plaintiff, the learned 1st Additional District Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1950/-.
(3.) There appears to be no dispute that originally the premises were let out to Ram Lal by Gopi Chand, father of the plaintiff. Ram Lal carried on business in the premises under the name and style of Atlantic Sports. According to the plaintiff, the property fell to the share of the plaintiff in the family partition. The learned Judge has recorded a clear finding that as a result of partition in the family, the plaintiff became the owner of the premises in question. He was, therefore, entitled to claim rent for the period in question. The plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of his father. The record indicates that plaintiff's father realised rent and issued receipts. He could do so under the power or attorney executed in his favour by his son.;