Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) ONE Suraj Narain was the owner of a plot of land situate on Original Road in Paharganj, Delhi. Half of this plot was leased to one Gurbachan Singh and the other half to Ram Saran, Ganga Bishan and Jaswant Singh, Appellants. After taking the plot on lease, Gurbachan Singh raised certain structures, that is wooden Khokhas and a tin -shed, on his portion of the plot, Later on, he parted with possession of the portion leased out to him in favour of his brother. Harbhajan Singh, Respondent No. 1. As a result, after giving the required notice to quit, Suraj Narain brought a suit in 1956 for ejectment against Gurbachan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Messrs Universal Timber Traders. The grounds of ejectment were that Gurbachan Singh had sublet the premises to Harbhajan Singh and Messrs Universal Timber Traders and he had raised the above -mentioned constructions Without the landlord's consent. The suit was contested by all the Defendants. The plea of Gurbachan Singh was that these constructions as also the induction of Harbhajan Singh and Messrs. Universal Timber Traders were with the consent of the landlord. It was also pleaded that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to try this case as the Rent Act applied to these premises. The defence of Harbhajan Singh and Messrs. Universal Timber Traders was that Gurbachan Singh had not sublet these premises in their favour, but as the other hand, they were tenants directly under the landlord since a long time. It was also stated that these constructions had been made by them at a cost of Rs. 1,500. They also ok the plea that the Civil Courts could not deal with the matter, the same being covered by the Rent Act. The suit was compromised on 20th December, 1957 whereby Suraj Narain accepted Harbhajan Singh as his tenant and the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 40 to Rs. 50. There -after, Suraj Narain sold the entire plot to the Appellants by means of a registered deed, which was executed on 14th March, 1959, but registered on 29th May, 1960, for Rs. 20,000. On 12th September, 1960 the Appellants gave a notice to Harbhajan Singh, Respondent No. 1, determining his tenancy with effect from 30th September, 1960 and calling upon him to hand over vacant possession to them on that date. Since he did not do so, the present suit for ejectment was filed by them in April, 1961, against him and Waryam Singh and Manohar Lal, Respondents 2 and 3, as representing Messrs. Universal Timber Tradedrs. The ground of ejectment was that Respondent No. 1 had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the aforesaid plot to Respondents 2 and 3 without the consent of the Appellants.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the Defendants who. inter alia, pleaded that the premises in question was a building and not a plot and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was also pleaded that there was no subletting in favour of Respondents 2 and 3, who were also the tenants of the Appellants. It was further stated that the notice terminating the tenancy given by the Appellants was void and illegal and it did not validly terminate the tenancy on 30th September, 1960. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - - (1) Whether the property included in the tenancy is 'premises'? If so, to what effect? (2) Whether Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the suit property as direct tenants under the Plaintiffs? If so, to what effect? (3) Whether the notice of ejectment served by the Plaintiffs on Defendant No. 1 is illegal and void? (4) Relief.
(3.) THE trial Judge held that the property included in the tenancy was "premises" as defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act,. 1958, On issue No. 2, it was conceded on behalf of the Respondents that it was Respondent No. 1, only, who Was the tenant of the Appellants, and Respondents No. 2 and 3 were on the premises through him. On issue No. 3, it was held that the notice of ejectment served by the Appellants on the Respondents was quite valid and legal. As a result of the finding on issue No. 1. however, the suit was dismissed.;