- (1.) The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the sole defendant Panna Lal of SCC Suit No. 1 of 1986 that had been filed by Gaya Prasad and Santosh Kumar, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this petition, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Panna Lal contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit Panna Lal died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. The suit was ultimately decreed by the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2007. The plaintiffs were held entitled to arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 22.50/- w.e.f. December, 1983 and the defendants were directed to give possession of the disputed shop to the plaintiffs within one month. Feeling aggrieved the defendants filed Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This Revision has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 28th February, 2008. This petition has been filed for setting aside the aforesaid orders.
(2.) In the SCC Suit the following points for determination had been framed. 1. Whether the defendants had been given the disputed shop on rent by the plaintiff w.e.f. December, 1983 on rent of Rs. 150/- per month and if so, its effect. 2. Whether the defendants have not paid any rent to the plaintiff from the date of commencement of the tenancy and if so, its effect. 3. Whether the tenancy had been determined by a valid notice dated 29th October, 2005. 4. Whether the Suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Smt. Parana Kunwar. 5. Whether the Suit was liable to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court under Section 23 of the Act. 6. To what relief the plaintiff was entitled to.
(3.) The Judge Small Cause Courts held that the defendants were the tenant of the plaintiffs w.e.f. December, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 22.50/- per month and that no rent had been paid by the defendants from the date they were inducted as tenant; that the notice dated 29th October, 1985 validly terminated the tenancy; that Smt. Parana Kunwar was not a necessary party and that the plaint was not liable to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court under Section 23 of the Act. The Suit was, accordingly, decreed. The Revisional Court has confirmed these findings.;