S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) This is plaintiffs appeal arising from a suit for recovery of possession of shop and for recovery of the sum of Rs. 280/- on account of damages for use and occupation of the shop and for Rs. 370.90 on account of arrears of profits of partnership. The suit has been dismissed by the learned court below.
(2.) Admittedly Kalyan Chand, respondent No. 2, was the owner of the shop in dispute. On 17-10-1961 a document was executed between Kalyan Chand, respondent No. 2 and Sita Ram Gupta respondent No. 1. This document is Ext. 22 on record of the Court below and has been described as a deed of partnership. Cn 21-7-1971 Kalyan Chand, respondent No. 2, executed a deed of sale in favour of the appellant. Through this deed he transferred the property of which the shop in suit forms part in favour of the appellant. Along with the property he also transferred the sum of Rs. 1548.71 which according to Kalyan Chand had accrued due to him from respondent No. 1 by way of profits of the partnership created under Ext. 22. After executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant respondent No. 2 issued notice to-respondent No. 1 on 26-7-1971 requiring him to vacate the shop. Before execution, of the sale deed Kalyan Chand had issued notice to respondent No.1 on 27-10-1970 purporting to dissolve the partnership Another notice was issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 on 2-8-1971 requiring him to pay the arrears of profits. Through this notice respondent No. 1 was also intimated of' the sale of the shop in favour of the appellant and required him to vacate the-shop and hand over possession to the appellant. Respondent No. 1 did not comply with this notice and thereafter the appellant filed a suit which has given rise to the present appeal.
(3.) The appellants case before the court below was that the transaction evidenced by Ext. 22 was a transaction of partnership between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and that by virtue-of the sale deed executed in her favour by respondent No. 2 she had become entitled to possession of the shop. Her further case was that Ext. 22 at the most, created licence in favour of respondent No. 1 and the transaction was not one-of tenancy. It was also pleaded that the shop in question had been newly constructed and was exempt from the operation of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.;