JUDGMENT :- This second appeal Arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25th Nov, 1964, passed by the Civil Judge. Deoria in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1964.

2. The facts leading to this appeal can briefly be stated as under :-

Ram Chandra Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh, appellants, filed a suit for recovery of possession over the premises shown by letters A B C D in the site-plan attached to the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 628.20 as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. It was alleged that Jai Narain, defendant-respondent No. 1 as Karta of the defendant s family took the house in question on rent about 20 years ago. The plaintiffs-appellants having half share in the house in suit got it partitioned by means of a partition suit No. 2 of 1955 and obtained separate possession over the same. By virtue of the partition decree, the plaintiffs-appellants became entitled to recover half of the rent which they demanded from the defendants-respondents, but the latter did not pay any heed. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs-appellants, therefore, served on them notice under S. 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act and S. 106 of the T. P. Act to determine their tenancy. It was on this premise that the plaintiffs asked for the aforesaid relief. The suit was resisted by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the house in suit was let out to them by one Ram Padarath Khagi as landlord and that the plaintiffs-appellants were not their landlords and were not entitled to the decree asked for. The other issues framed in the case referred to questions of fact and the findings thereon were not assailed before me.

3. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on the record held that the plaintiffs-appellants became the landlords after the partition decree and that the defendants had committed default in payment of rent. In consequence of these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Aggrieved against that decree passed by the trial Court, Ram Saran, defendant No. 1, filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Deoria. The learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, held that the plaintiffs-appellants could not be the landlords and were not entitled to file a suit for ejectment. Having held that the plaintiffs-appellants were not the landlords, the lower appellate Court further held that the notice served by the appellants under S. 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act and S. 106 of the T. P. Act was of no consequence. In consequence of these findings the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit in toto.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal before this Court.

6. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiffs-appellants became the landlords of that portion of the house on rent with the defendants which fell in their share in the partition suit and whether the plaintiffs-appellants were on that ground entitled to obtain a decree of ejectment of the defendants from that portion of the house.

7. The fact that a partition suit had taken place between the plaintiffs-appellants on the one side and Ram Padarath on the other has not been controverted before me. That fact also stands proved by the certified copies of the judgments and decree on record. It has also not been disputed before me that a final decree had been prepared in the partition suit and the portion of the house shown in the plaint map with letters A B C D fell in the share of the plaintiff-appellants and they obtained possession over the same. The respondents, however, contended in the lower appellate Court and reiterated before me that the partition decree could not carry the effect of splitting the tenancy and consequently the plaintiffs-appellants, who have been allotted only half share in the house, cannot sue for the ejectment of the respondents. The lower appellate Court has accepted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document