In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiffs must prove their ownership of the disputed premises, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and the validity of the notice of ejectment. The Karta of a joint Hindu family can terminate a tenancy on behalf of the family, but only if he is properly appointed and authorized to do so.

JUDGMENT :- This is defendant's second appeal. Jwala Prasad Kajriwal, son of Ram Bilas and Bankey Behari Kajriwal, son of Sunder Lal, respondents had filed a suit for ejectment from certain premises against Mahboob Ullah and also for arrears of rent. In the body of the plaint Bankey Behari (plaintiff No. 2) had described himself as 'Karta of the family' and 'adult son of Sunder Lal'. The respondents came to court with the contention that plaintiff No. 1 Jwala Prasad Kajriwal and Bankey Behari Kajriwal (plaintiff No. 2) are the owners of Hata No. 84/145 in dispute and that the defendant-appellant was the tenant of Quarter No. 12 of the aforesaid Hata on a monthly rent of Rs. 3.75 np. that the defendant had failed to pay rent from 1st June, 1962 and was in arrears of Rupees 63.60 np. The plaintiffs claimed to have served upon the defendant a notice dated 5-4-1963 putting an end to the tenancy and demanding payment of arrears.

2. The appellant-defendant denied that the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed accommodation. He denied further that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and pleaded that Bankey Behari, plaintiff No. 2, was not the Karta of the family of the descendants of Sunder Lal and the descendants of Sunder Lal do not form joint Hindu family. The defendant contested the right of Bankey Behari (plaintiff No. 2) to file a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent as Karta of the said family and raised the defence that the descendants of Sunder Lal could not recover any rent from the defendant for the period falling in the lifetime of Sunder Lal without obtaining a succession certificate. The defendants' case was that the accommodation was let out to him by one Lala Mangal Ram; that he had paid rent to Prem Nath Munim up to the end of August, 1963. There was also a plea questioning validity of the notice of ejectment and demand on the ground that plaintiffs 1 and 2 respondents not being the sole owners of the accommodation or landlords of the defendant they were not competent to put an end to his tenancy. These were some of the main-grounds raised in defence for the appellant. The trial court held that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not the sole owners of the accommodation in dispute; that there was no proof of relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties that the notice dated 5-4-1963 was not proved to have been served upon the defendant and, therefore, he did not commit default in the payment of rent within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of U.P. Act III of 1947 and that the plaintiffs were not proved to be the sole owners of that accommodation and landlords of the defendant had no right to issue the notice of ejectment. Upon these findings, in the main, the suit was dismissed with costs. The respondents appealed and the Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, allowed the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. on the finding that by virtue of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act there had come to exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that Bankey Behari (plaintiff No. 2) is the Karta of the joint family descendants of Sunder Lal and therefore, entitled to terminate the appellant's tenancy and sue for ejectment on behalf of the other co-owners constituting the joint family. On the question of arrears his finding was against the appellant; the finding being that the defendant had failed to establish that rent had been paid by him up to the end of August, 1963 and he was, therefore, found to be in arrears from 1st June, 1962.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate court was in error in holding that the notice of ejectment relied upon for the respondents was valid in law.

4. It was further urged that the court below WM in error in holding that Jwala Prasad and Bankey Behari respondents c