SUNDAR DEVI Vs. IIIRD A D J FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by original petitioner Smt. Sundar Devi since deceased and survived by legal representatives against respondent Nos. 2 and 3-Radhey Shyam and Purshottam Das. The suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 54 of 1979 on the file of J. S. C. C. /munsif, Fatehpur. In the suit two grounds for ejectment were taken, one of default and the other of sub-tenancy (According to the plaint allegations respondent No. 2 was the tenant and he had sub-let the tenanted shop to respondent No. 3 ). Trial Court through judgment and decree dated 10-4-1981 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of sub-tenancy. Trial Court after recording that sub- tenancy stood proved held that tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In my opinion trial Court was wrong in respect of benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 57 of 1981. IIIrd A. D. J. , Fatehpur through judgment and order dated dated 16-7-1982 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Landlady filed this writ petition against the said judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court.

(2.) THE Revisional Court held that plaintiff failed to explain that in what capacity respondent No. 3 Purshottam Das the alleged sub-tenant was working in the shop in dispute. THE Revisional Court, therefore, held that there was no sub-tenancy. In this regard finding of the Revisional Court is utterly erroneous in law as it did not take into consideration the own admission of the defendants. Radhey Shyam respondent No. 2 in his oral statement clearly stated that Purshottam Das was doing business with him in the shop in dispute in the partnership and they had also obtained licence for the same. Similarly respondent No. 3 Purshottam Das stated in his oral statement that since August, 1978 he was doing business with Radhey Shyam in partnership and there was no sub-tenancy.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has argued that respondent No. 3 was admitted as partner in the business by respondent No. 2 and not as a partner in the tenancy. In this regard learned Counsel has cited AIR 1975 Alld. 517 and AIR 1966 Alld 621. Both these authorities deal with the old Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947) where there was no such provision like Section 12 (2) of U. P. Act. No. 13 of 1972. Accordingly, the said authorities are not applicable to the facts of this case.