SIKKIM KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD Vs. SH. UMESH AGGARWAL AND SH. A. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is by the tenant, Sikkim Khadi & 'Village Industries Board against the judgment and decree dated 18th Feb., 1984 by the learned District Judge, Sikkim decreeing with costs the suit brought by the landlord, Shri Umesh Agarwal, Respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2 Shri Ayodhya Singh for possession after the eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and also for Rs. 13,500.00 on account of rent from 1st. April, 1979 to Sept., 1980 together with mesne profits from 1st Oct., 1980 till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) Defendant No. 1, Sikkim Khadi Village Industries Board, was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises situated at Deorali described in the schedule given at foot of the plaint, on monthly rent of Rs. 750.00. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent from 1st April, 1979 and also that defendant No. 1 sublet the premises to defendant No. 2 without his knowledge and consent and therefore with the intention of resuming possession of the premises he served a notice to quit dated 12th Aug., 1980 requiring the defendants to vacate the premises with the expiry of Sept., 1980 but the defendants did not comply with the notice despite service of the notice on 23rd Aug., 1980.

(3.) Both the defendants filed separate written statement. However, subsequently, defendant No. 2 did not contest the suit and therefore, the case proceeded exparte against him. 7 Thus, it was only defendant No. 1 who contested the suit. He denied the plaint allegations wholesale. It was denied that defendant No. 1 was the tenant under the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 750.00per month. The allegation about default having being committed in the payment of rent since the month of April, 1979 was also denied. The allegation regarding the subletting was also disputed. The receipt of the notice was also denied. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had vacated the premises on 31st Oct., 1978. 'Certain preliminary objections regarding the maintenance of the suit were also taken but they are not material for the purpose of the appeal.