Judgment

GROVER, J.:- These two appeals by special leave are from a judgment of the Delhi High Court.

2. It appears that one Manohar Lal was the owner of the premises in dispute situate in Kishangunj, Delhi. He died leaving behind him his brother Krishan Lal and two sons Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In June 1943, Krishan Lal let out the premises to Hindustan Trust Pvt. Ltd. of which he was the Managing Director from 1943 to 1952. In 1947 Krishan Lal filed a suit for partition in Agra Court against his nephews Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In 1952 Krishan Lal became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent company. His son-in-law D. Sanghi become the Managing Director. On March 21, 1952 a compromise was effected in the suit for partition. The virtue of that compromise Gauri Shanker - the present appellants -was declared to be the owner of the property in dispute and he was held entitled to realize its rent with effect from January 1, 1958. The deed of compromise was signed by Krishan Lal and all the other parties concerned. On May 26, 1958 a decree was passed in accordance with the compromise. On June 12, 1958 the appellant gave notice to the respondent company to pay rent to him with effect from January 1, 1958. A copy of this notice was sent to Krishan Lal as well. On July 7, 1958 the appellant sent a reminder to the respondent to expedite the sending of the reply or to discuss the matter with him personally. On July 17, 1958 the appellant demanded by means of a letter the rent due apart from the supply of certain information with regard to the measurements of the building and land in possession of the respondent. A reply was sent by D. Sanghi Managing Director of the respondent-company dated July 18, 1958. He wrote, inter alia that regarding the rent for the month ending on 30th June 1958 the matter had been referred to Krishan Lal and on receipt of his instructions in writing the rent shall be paid accordingly. By means of a letter dated July 23, 1958 Krishan Lal wrote to two tenants including the respondent that the factory in which they were tenants had gone to the share of the appellant Gauri Shanker as a result of the partition among the co-owners and all arrears of rent due after January 1, 1958 should be paid to him. According to the appellant he was not being allowed to enter the premises and take measurements and, therefore, he filed the suit on October 28, 1958 for a mandatory injunction for being allowed to do so. In the written statement dated December 7, 1958, filed by the respondent the position taken up by the respondent was that it had not been supplied any copy of the partition decree proving that the property had fallen to the share of the appellant in partition nor had Krishan Lal the previous landlord sent any instructions for attornment in favour of the appellant. It was denied that the appellant was the owner of the property in dispute. On March 23, 1959 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent against the respondent company impleading Krishan Lal and Hari Shanker as pro forma respondents. By a written statement filed on May 20, 1959 the respondent denied the relationship of landlord-tenant between the company and the appellant and claimed to be a tenant only under Krishan Lal. By means of a notice dated August 17, 1959 sent by Shri Triyugi Narain Advocate on behalf of the appellant the respondent was informed that it was the tenant of the appellant in the property known as "Bagh Barafkhana" at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and that the appellant was entitled to receive rent with effect from January 1, 1958. The following portion from that notice may usefully be extracted:

"That you have fallen in arrrear of rent and a sum of Rs. 5700/- is due from you as rent from 1st January 1958 to 21st July 1959 which you have failed to pay in spite of repeated requests and demands.

It is therefore to serve you with this notice of demand asking you to pay the said sum of Rs. 5700/- and futu