S. P. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of damages for use and occupation and future mesne profits. The appellant was impleaded as second defendant in the suit.

( 2 ) THE suit was originally instituted by the Bank of Nagpur, Ltd. It was substituted by the Bank of Maharashtra, Durg Branch, Durg, as plaintiff as a result of the amalgamation of the original plaintiff with the Bank of Maharashtra, Ltd.

( 3 ) THE first defendant in the suit was a partnership firm 'chunnilal Champalal kothari Durg'. The original partners of this firm were two brothers, Champalal and manaklal. On the death of Manaklal, the firm was reconstituted. Thereafter, the partners of the firm were Champalal and Jawaharlal son of Manaklal.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit house belonged to one Devi Prasad who was the owner of the shop Chandmal Balaram, The defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the whole house consisting of the ground floor and the upper storey up to the end of July 1955. The plaintiff alleged that from 1st August 1955, the defendant no. 1 continued in occupation of the ground floor only having vacated the first floor. At that time, the first defendant agreed to pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent to the plaintiff for the ground floor in its occupation and the plaintiff took the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- from the owner. The second defendant was impleaded on the allegation that the first defendant had sublet a portion gf the ground floor to him where he was maintaining his office. The first defendant denied that it was a tenant of the plaintiff of the ground floor of the suit premises and asserted that it continued to remain the tenant of the whole house and the plaintiff came in occupation as a sub-tenant of the first defendant.

( 5 ) THE case set up by the second defendant was that he was not a sub-tenant and remained in occupation as a member of the joint family of Champalal Kothari who was one of the partners of the first defendant- firm:

( 6 ) BOTH the Courts below found that by virtue of the agreement which was made in 1955, the plaintiff became the tenant of the whole building and the first defendant occupied the position of a sub-tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. They further held that the first defendant by denying the title of the plaintiff as its landlord before suit bad forfeited its tenancy and had made itself liable for eviction under the provisions of Section 4 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation. Control Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the 'act' ). Both the lower courts also found that the second defendant had no independent status of his own to ba in occupation of the premises, he having been inducted on the property by his father Champalal.

( 7 ) SHRI R. S. Dabir, learaed counsel for the plaintiff (respondent No. 1), has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that it is not within the competence of madanlal (appellant) whose status at best is that of a sub-tenant or licensee to prefer an appeal from an order of eviction passed against the first defendant and himself even though the first defendant has not preferred any appeal therefrom. In my opinion, though the present appellant could file an appeal being a party against whom a decree of ejectment was passed, he had no 'locus standi' to challenge the correctness of the decision of the ower appellate Court when the tenant has not appealed against that decision. It is obvious that the first defendant or any of his partners not having appealed to this Court, the decree of ejectment has clearly become final against them. The appellant derived his right to be in possession of the property merely as licensee of Champalal. At best, his status could be that of a sub-tenant as alleged by the plaintiff. In my opinion, it is plain that when the decree of the lower Court became final against the tenant, he could not claim any right to remain in occupation of the premises in his poss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document