P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) BALKISHAN Dass and his brother Narain Dass brough to suit against Ganga Narain alias Kakko alias Papoo and Suraj Mai for possession of the shops in dispute one for the recovery of Rs. 171/4/ - as mesne profits. Their allegations were that one Ram Saran Dass was the tenant of the shops in question. His tenancy was terminated by issuing him a notice dated 14 -4 -1956 to vacate the premises; Thereafter on 31 -8 -1956 a suit was brought for his eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Daring the pendency of this suit, he died on 14 -9 -1956 and Ganga Narain was impleaded as a Defendant as he was alleging himself to be the adopted son of the deceased, Ram Saran Bass. He paid the arrears of rent, which were accepted by the Plaintiffs and, as a result, their suit was dismissed on 10 -12 -1956. The present suit was brought on 10 -6 -1958, in which it was alleged that Ganga Narain was a trespasser and further that he sublet the shops to Suraj Mai, Defendant No. 2. The mesne profits were claimed for the period commencing from 7 -8 -1956 to 19 -5 -1958.
(2.) THE suit was contested by Ganga Narain, Defendant No. 1, who inter alia, pleaded that he was the adopted son of Ram Sarup Dass and was in possession of these shops as a tenant in his own right. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte
(3.) THE pleas of the parties gave rise to the following issue: 1. Are the Plaintiffs the owners of the suit property? 2. Is the suit properly valued for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction? 3. Is the Defendant a tenant of the premises under the Plaintiffs? 4. Is the Defendant an adopted son of Ram Saran Dass deceased? 5. To what amount, if any, are the Plaintiffs entitled as mesne profits? 6. Has this Court jurisdiction to award a decree for arrears of rent? 7. Is the Defendant liable to eviction as per allegations in the plaint? 8. Relief. The trial Judge found that the Plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property, that the Defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of Ram Saran Dass and was the tenant of the shops in dispute under the Plaintiffs and that a Defendant No. 1 (sic) or non -payment of rent. In view of these possession (sic) the suit of the Plaintiffs for ejectment and possession, of the premises in dispute was dismissed, but a decree for Rs. 171/14/ - as arrears of rent, was however, passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1, because these arrears were tendered in Court but the Plaintiffs had refused to accept them as they were not recognising Defendant No. 1 as their tenant.;