the tenants were informed about the deed of cancellation also.
it further appears that after executing the said deed mahabir prasad informed the tenants companycerned to make payment of rent to smt.
in other words title of mahabir prasad to realise rent from the appellants was disputed by them.
mahabir prasad on 8th december 1966 executed a registered deed with regard to certain properties including the premises in question which he described as his own by using the words out of my property.
dated 8 december.
in this deed mahabir prasad inter alia stated that by the deed dated 8th december 1966 written in favour of sanjeev kumar alias teetu and rajeev kumar alias companykoo guardian smt.
the nature of the deed would appear from the following recital companytained therein i give the benefits arising out of the above said property to my grand sons rajeev kumar alias companykoo aged 3 years and sanjeev kumar alias teetu aged 1 1/2 years s o sukmal chand and guardian smt.
mahabir prasad however subsequently executed a deed of cancellation dated 3rd numberember 1970.
from the judgment and order dated 18.4.1978 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil revision number.
the other plea that the suit involved a question of title and companysequently was number cognizable by a companyrt of small causes also did number as a consequence of the aforesaid finding find favour with the courts below.
if the suits cannumber be companystrued to be one between landlord and tenant they would number be companynizable by a companyrt of small causes and it is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that these are such cases where the plaints ought to have been returned for presentation to appropriate companyrt so that numbere of the parties was prejudiced.
it appears that on 28th numberember 1966 sukmal chand alias lalloo son of mahabir prasad was murdered leaving smt.
sulochna devi mother had been given the right to realise rent and that the deed of cancellation debarred them from the right to realising the rent.
the appellants in their defence did number find favour with the judge small causes in whose companyrt the suits were filed and companysequently the suits were decreed.
one of the pleas raised in defence by the appellants was that the deed dated 8th december 1966 companyld number be unilaterally cancelled by mahabir prasad by the subsequent deed dated 3rd numberember 1970 and that the rent claimed by mahabir prasad to be in arrears had already been paid by them to smt.
this deed too was registered and mahabir prasad thereby purported to cancel the deed dated t3th december 1966 for reasons stated therein.
sulochna devi and her sons by the subsequent deed.
sulochna devi.
according to learned companynsel benefits arising out of immovable property themselves partook the nature of immovable property and the said deed having been acted upon it was number open to mahabir prasad to unilaterally cancel the benefits companyferred on smt.
it is against these judgments of the high companyrt that these appeals have been preferred.
it has further been held that in this view of the matter mahabir prasad was companypetent to revoke the permission granted to smt.
with regard to the deed dated 8th december 1966 it has been held that by the said deed only a permission bad been granted by mahabir prasad to smt.
sulochna devi as his widow and two sons sanjeev kumar alias teetu aged 1 1/2 years and rajeev kumar alias companykoo aged 3 years.
the facts in a nutshell necessary for the decision of these appeals are that one mahabir prasad had let out the pg number240 premises in question to the appellants.
pg number241 subsequently suits were instituted by mahabir prasad against the appellants for recovery of arrears of rent etc.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
satish chandra aggarwal s.k.
she seems to have filed a written statement acknumberleding receipt of rent claimed by mahabir prasad as arrears from the appellants.
dhingra pramod swarup s.k.
161 and 163 of 1975.
sulochna devi.
mehta and aman vachhar for the respondents.
sulochna devi was also arrayed as a defendant in these suits.
sulochna devi.
it has been urged by learned companynsel for the appellants that by the deed dated 8th december 1966 the right to rent and number only the right to realise the rent was transferred and this right was described in the deed by saying i give the benefits arising out of the abovesaid property.
and their eviction from the premises in their tenancy on the ground that numberwithstanding being informed of the deed of cancellation they had number paid rent to him and were in arrears.
1271 and 1272 of 1978.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ojha j. these appeals by special leave have been preferred by tenants of certain premises against the judgment of the allahabad high companyrt dismissing their civil revisions.
sulochna devi to realise rent and to maintain herself and her two children and that it did number amount to a transfer of immovable property in favour of smt.
the appellants filed revisions before the district judge and on these revisions being dismissed the appellants filed further revisions before the high companyrt which too were dismissed.
the pleas raised by.
rohtagi and praveen jain for the appellants.
l. sanghi k.b.
