JUDGMENT:- These purport to be two cross second appeals, which arise out of a suit filed by Lalman for the ejectment of Nazroo from two shops, numbered 3 and 4, situate at Aut, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.424/8/- as arrears of rent. Lalmans case was that he had leased out these shops to Nazroo on payment of rent and that Nazroo had defaulted with the rent. Consequently, Lalman claimed a decree for the ejectment of Nazroo and for arrears of rent mentioned above.

2. Nazroo, while admitting that he had taken shop No.3 on rent from Lalman, contended that he was not liable to ejectment at the instance of Lalman, because, according to him, Lalman was not the proprietor of the shop. As regards shop No.4, he denied that he had taken it on rent from the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment as far as shop No. 3 was concerned, along with a sum of Rs.60/8/- as arrears of rent. The suit was, however, dismissed as far as shop No.4 was concerned, since, in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had taken it from him on rent.

3. Both parties went up in appeal to the learned District Judge and the latter dismissed both t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document