- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In theses petitions the subject-matter of dispute (i. e. shop), the question of law and fact involved and parties are common, therefore, they were con nected and were heard together on the re quest made by the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Writ petition No. 9375 of 1984, arises out of SCC case No. 62 of 1978 which was filed by the petitioner for eject ment of late Shri Ghar Bharan from the shop in dispute, and for recovery of rent on the ground of default and sub-letting. It was pleaded that Shiri Ghar Bharan was in ar rears of rent since October, 1977 and did not pay the same in spite of the notice of demand and termination of tenancy served upon him, within the statutory period of 30 days. He had also sublet the shop to shri Deo Narain and permitted him to occupy the same exclusively. Since the notice given by the petitioner was wrongly replied and the shop in dispute was not vacated by Shri Ghar Bharan, suit was filed for the above mentioned reliefs by her. The suit was contested by Shri Gar Bharan with the pleas that he had taken the shop in dispute as Karta of Joint Hindu family from Sri Kaushalendra Pratap Singh, the original owner of the shop in dispute in 1966, it was in the year 1974 that there was partition amongst his brothers and the shop in dispute was allotted in the share of Sri Deo Narain who was occupying the same in his own right. There was, therefore, no ques tion of subletting involved in the case. During pendency of the suit Ghar Bharan died leaving behind his widow and other heirs who were impleaded as defen dants on an application filed by the petitioner, Deo Narain was also impleaded as one of the defendants.
(3.) A writien statement was also filed by Shri Deo Narain, pleading that the amount of rent was sent by him to the petitioner by money-order which was refused by her. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute was taken by Sri Ghar Bharan in the capacity of Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and not in his individual and personal capacity. Deo Narain claimed that he was occupying the shop in dispute in his own right and the petitioner had no right to file the suit. Sri Deo Narain also died during pen dency of the proceedings and his heirs were substituted in his place.;