Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The first plaintiff (PW1) has remained steadfast in stating that the second defendant voluntarily handed over vacant possession of the subject premises after an amicable resolution; that later he has entered into lease agreements dated 01.04.2002 with the first defendant; that the lease of the subject premises in favour of the first defendant is subject to the condition that the first defendant could sub-lease the property to his four sons; that the subject premises are used as godowns; that there are only two units each in the First and Second Floors; that there is no error in description of the subject premises in the respective plaints; that the first defendant is the tenant and the firms constituted by him with his sons are using the subject premises as godowns; that the second defendant is not in possession of any portion of the larger property in his own right as a tenant; that the rentals for the subject premises have always been paid by cheques; that he has indeed transferred 5/6th share in the larger property to Mr. Trilok Chand and the second to fifth plaintiffs; that he has issued legal notices of termination addressed to the first defendant and such legal notices have been served; that he has recovered possession of a portion of the first floor occupied by the second defendant's wife in execution of a decree for ejectment against her.

"(i) is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee.