K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THESE seven connected revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arise from a common judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 14-1-1975 dismissing the revisions filed under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that Mahabir Prasad, plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, was the owner of a building and few shops situated in Bazar Burababu, Laskarganj, Sardahaba, district Meerut. THE shops had been let out to various tenants, Budhumal was the tenant of shop No. 32, Baldeo Raj was the tenant of upper storey of the building bearing No. 27, Ramphal was the tenant of shop No. 28 where as Kallu Ram was the tenant of shop No. 30. THEse tenants were in arrears of rent. Mahavir Prasad sent combined notices of demand for determination of tenancy to these tenants. THEy did not pay the rent. Hence, Mahabir Prasad filed four suits for ejectment and for recovery of the arrears of rent against the four tenants. He impleaded Smt. Sulochana Devi, the wife of his deceased son Sukhmal Chand, and her two sons as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit. Mahabir Prasad did not seek any relief against the aforesaid defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He, however, alleged that the aforesaid defendants had no concern with the disputed premises. He further alleged that after the death of his son, Sukhmal Chand, the plaintiff opposite-party premitted Smt. Sulochna Devi, defendant No. 2, to realise rent from the plaintiff's property for her maintenance and her two children by the document dated 8-12-1966. THE disputed shops were also included in the said deed. But as Smt. Sulochana Devi, defendant No. 2, committed breach of the conditions of the agreement and instead of residing at Sardahana and maintainin her two minor sons, she began to live at Chap-rauli with her parents, therefore, the deed dated 8-12-1966 was cancelled on 2-11-1970. After the cancellation of the said deed, the defendant No. 2 was deprived of the benefits of the maintenance which she was granted. The suit was contested by the tenants as well as Smt. Sulochana Devi and her two minor sons. The tenants denied the relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiff and themselves. Smt. Sulochana Devi, defendant No. 2, however, claimed that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in suit as Karta of the family and that under the family settlement executed on 8-12-1966, she was realizing the rent from the tenants. She asserted that the tenants had paid rent to her and they were not liable to be evicted. She further claimed that the plaintiff opposite-party had no power to cancel the deed dated 8-12-1966. On the pleading of the parties, the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut framed a number of issues. He held that the deed in question was not a family settlement. It was only a licence or permission granted by Mahabir Prasad to Smt. Sulochana Devi, defendant No. 2, to realise rent from the tenants for her maintenance. Mahabir Prasad had full rights to cancel the same. After the deed was cancelled in 1970, Smt. Sulochana Devi ceased to have any right to realise the rent. Consequently, she could not dispute the right of the plaintiff to bring the suits for ejectment & for the recovery of the arrears of rent. Other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. The Judge Small Causes Court held that the plaintiff had proved that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendants he was entitled to the decree.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court, the tenants as well as Smt. Sulochana Devi preferred eight revisions before the learned District Judge. These revisions were transferred to the II Additional Civil Judge and were " dismissed by the impugned order dated 14-1-1975. Feeling aggrieved, all the tenants and Smt. Sulochana Devi filed eight revisions in this Court. One of the revisions was, however, dismissed for want of prosecution. We are now left with seven revisions.;