An heir of a lessee is liable for the rent of the leased premises, even if he does not enter into possession, as privity of estate is created in the same way as in the case of an assignee.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows: The plaintiff-appellant Mannalal Serowgie and the joint family of which he is the karta, is the owner of premises No. 8, Banstollah Gully. It is a three-storeyed structure consisting of a number of rooms. On or about 1-7-1944 two persons, one Prasadilal since deceased and Chittarmal the second defendant-respondent, took a lease of the first and second floor of the said premises. The lease was for a period of three years at a rent of Rs. 230/- per month. The lease was to take effect from 14th of April, 1945 and it expired on or about 13th April, 1948. The case of the appellant is that upon the expiry of the lease, Prasadilal for self and as karta of a joint family consisting of himself, his brothers and their lineapdescendants, and the said Chittormal, became joint tenants in respect of the first, second and the third floor of the said premises. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy at a rental of Rs. 325/- per month. The evidence is that the rent was paid at all material times under the name and style of Prasadilal Chittarmal Jain. They in their turn inducted a number of subtenants. It is in evidence that the respondent No. 1, Ishwariprasad Jain, a brother of Prasadilal, became a sub-tenant in respect of one room. Prasadilal died in May 1953. He died unmarried and without issue. It is necessary here to say something about the family of Prasadilal. I have already stated that the appellant alleges that Prasadilal was a tenant for self and as karta of a Hindu joint family and this is denied. However, it appears that Prasadilal had three brothers, Ishwariprasad, Sitaram and Chiranjilal. Sitaram died during his lifetime, leaving his son Nemchand. Ishwari prasad has a son named Premchand. It is in evidence that Ishwariprasad, Premchand and Nemchand are still residing in the said pre mises. So far as Chiranjilal is concerned, it is said that he was last known to be residing at Howrah. Anyhow, the evidence of Ishwari prasad is that the family was never joint that the brothers had separated long ago and that neither Prasadilal nor himself ever became karta of a joint family. After the death of Prasadilal, the tenancy continued in the same name of Prasadilal Chittarmal Jam, in which name rent was paid to the landlord as well as rents were realised from sub-tenants. The case of the plaintiff is, that after Prasadilal died, Ishwariprasad together with Chittarmal came to him and Ishwariprasad represented that he was the senior member of the family and the pre mises let out to Prasadilal and Chittarmal should be let out on the same terms to himself and Chittarmal and so they became the tenants. It is stated in the plaint that rents were in arrears for 28 months from Chaitra Sudi 2nd, Samvat year 2011 corresponding to 5th April, 1954 to-- Asar Sudi 1st, Samvat year 2013 corresponding to 9th July, 1956, aggregating to Rs. 9100/ -. In the plaint, the first defendant is Ishwariprasad Jain for self and as Karta of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family consisting of himself, his brother and their lineal descendants. The second defendant is Chittormal Jain. So far as Ishwari prasad is concerned, it is pleaded that upon the death of Prasadilal he became the karta of a joint Hindu family. Alternatively, he was at all material times the legal heir and/or de facto administrator of the estate of Prasadilal Jain since deceased. There is an alternative case made against both the defendants for demages for use and occupation. It appears that only Ishwariprasad contested the suit. At the hear ing, Ray J. , passed a decree against the defendant Chittarmal with cost as of an un defended suit. The suit against Ishwariprasad was however, dismissed with cost. It is against this judgment dated 14-5-1962 that this appeal has been preferred, and the only contesting res pondent is Ishwariprasad Jain.

( 2 ) IN the court below ten issues were framed which are set out below:--"1. Did Prasadilal Jain become a tenan