JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Petitioner is tenant of a shop situated in Civil Lines, Opposite Old Jail within the premises of Mohan Hospital, Bulandshahr.
2. Plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2002 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, vide judgment dated 3.9.2002 decreed the suit on the ground of denial of title of the landlord in proceedings under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2002, the petitioner-tenant filed Revision No. 25 of 2002. A Cross Revision No. 26 of 2002 was also filed by the respondent-landlord.
4. Both the revisions were dismissed by the revisional court vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2002 affirming the Judgment and decree the trial court in view of the fact that the petitioner denied the title of the respondent-landlord. It is against the aforesaid impugned orders that the petitioner has come up in this writ petition before this Court.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner never denied the factum of his tenancy but he denied the exclusive ownership of the respondent-landlord over the disputed shop by way of family partition. He submitted that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 in lump sum before the “first date of hearing’ of the suit, which was more than the amount, i.e.. Rs. 14,460 claimed by the respondent-landlord, as such, the petitioner was not liable to be evicted from the disputed shop as he did not commit any default in payment of rent.
6. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is clear denial of title of the respondent-landlord by the petitioner and no rent had been paid rather it was sent to Sri Dhanendra Mohan one of the brothers who was accepting rent from him earlier but he did not accept the same in view of the fact that the disputed shop had come in the share of the respondent-landlord by family petition which was subject-matter of Suit No. 817 of 1999. It is urged that since the petitioner refused to recognize plaintiff-respondent as landlord of the disputed shop and failed to pay rent to the actual landlord, he is liable to be evicted from the disputed shop.
7. No other point has been argued by the petitioner.
8. The short point involved in the instant case is as to whether the title of the respondent-landlord has actually been denied by the petitioner-tenant or not and whether the petitioner in the circumstance is liable to be evicted.
9. It appears from perusal of record that the petitioner had claimed before the courts below that he was tenant of the disputed shop on a rent of Rs. 360 per month and had paid the same upto 30.9.1999 to the earlier owner. Sri Dhanendra Mohan whereas claim of the respondent-landlord-Dr. Subodh Mohan was that the disputed shop came to his share by means of a family partition and rent having not been paid to him on the basis of dental of his title, the petitioner was liable to be evicted.
10. It appears from record that in the written statement filed by the petitioner in the court below that he had paid rent to Sri Dhanendra Mohan upto 30.9.1999 and thereafter he also sent a sum of Rs. 1,441 towards the rent for the months of October, November, December and January, which were not accepted by Sri Dhanendra Mohan. It was also averred that the petitioner did not have any in formation about any family partition, as alleged by the respondent-landlord.
11. A bare perusal of paragraphs 17 and 21 of the judgment in S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2002 reveals that the trial court had adverted itself to these facts and came to the conclusion that the title of the respondent-landlord was clearly denied by the tenant. The trial court, in paragraphs 17 and 21 of the judgment has recorded a categorical finding that even after receipt of summons, the tenant did not deposit rent in favour of the landlord Dr. Subodh Mohan and took stand that Sri Dhanendra Mohan was his landlord. The trial court held that this stand of the petitioner amounts to clear denial of title of the respondent-landlord. The trial court also relied upon the statement of the petitioner wherein he stated that he had never tried to give rent to the respondent-landlord – Dr. Subodh Mohan. Paragraphs 17 and 21 of the judgment of the trial court being relevant for the decision of the controversy involved in the present case, are reproduced below:
17 oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g Hkh rdZ
fn;k x;k fd izfroknh }kjk U;k;ky; dh vkKkfIr dks pqukSrh nh xbZ gS rFkk dgk x;k
gS dh ewy okn la[;k 817 lu~ 1999 esa ikfjr vkKkfIr voS/k gS rFkk izfroknh dks
mijksDr vkKkfIr dks pqukSrh nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA ;gkWa rd fd U;k;ky;
dh vkKkfIr ds i’pkr Hkh izfroknh dks fdjk, dh vnk,xh ugha dh rFkk ;g dgk fd mldk
yS.MykMZ vc Hkh /kusUnz eksgu gh gSA bl izdkj izfroknh }kjk oknh ds LokfeRo ls
bUdkj fd;k tkuk Li”V gS A izfroknh us Mh0 MCyw0 1 ds #i esa vius c;ku esa
dgk gS fd oknh dks uksfVl vkus ds ckn Hkh eSaus Mk0 lqcks/k eksgu dks fdjk;k
nsus dh dksf’k’k ugha dhA
————————————————————————–
——————–
21 oknh dk dFku gS fd og ekSf[kd ikfjokfjd
le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr nqdku dk ekfyd o yS.MykMZ gS rFkk mijksDr le>kSrs
ds vk/kkj ij gh U;k;ky; flfoy tt] ¼izoj [kaM½ cqyUn’kgj }kjk ewy okn la[;k 817
lu~ 1999 esa fu.kZ; o vkKkfIr ikfjr djrs gq, fookfnr nqdku esa mlds LokfeRo laca/kh
vf/kdkj dh ?kks”k.kk Hkh dh xbZ gS A okn fcUnq la[;k 2 dk fuLrkj.k djrs le;
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fuf.kZr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd oknh rFkk izfroknh ds e/; yS.MykMZ
rFkk fdjk;snkj dk laca/k gS A tgkWa fd izfroknh }kjk oknh ds LikfeRo ls badkj fd,
tkus dk iz’u gS] bl laca/k esa oknh us vius LikfeRo ekSf[kd ikfjokfjd lEifRr dk
foHkktu rFkk blds i’pkr U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkKkfIr esa dh xbZ ?kks”k.kk ls
izkIr djuk crk;k gS] ijUrq U;k;ky; dh mijksDr vkKkfIr dks izfroknh }kjk pqukSrh
iznku dh xbZ gS] tcfd izfroknh dks mijksDr ewy okn la0 817 lu~ 1999 dh vkKkfIr
dks pwukSrh nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS A blds vfrfjDr bl okn esa bl U;k;ky;
dks mijksDr vkKkfIr dh oS/krk vFkok voS/krk ij dksbZ fopkj ugha djuk gS rFkk u
gh ;g U;k;ky; mijksDr vkKfIr ds fo#) tk ldrk gS A mijksDr vkKkfIr dks mijksDr
okn ds fdlh Hkh i{kdkj }kjk pqukSrh iznku ugha dh x;h gS A fo’ks”kdj iwoZ
ys.MykMZ /kusUnz eksgu }kjk Hkh dkbZ pqukSrh ugha nh x;h gSA
12. It appears that oral partition in the family was subject-matter of Original Suit No. 817 of 1999, Dhanendra Mohan v. Suresh Chandra and Ors., in which it was decided that Dr. Subodh Mohan, respondent-landlord in the present case was the landlord of the tenanted portion of the petitioner. When Dr. Subodh Mohan demanded rent from the petitioner, it was denied by him disputing the family partition by the aforesaid order despite the fact that parties to the Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 had not challenged the findings which had become final. The trial court noted in paragraph 21 of the decision that even Sri Dhanendra Mohan, who is claimed to be the landlord by the petitioner, who was party to the said suit, also did not challenge the order in that suit, yet the petitioner, in spite of notice by Dr. Subodh Mohan did not pay rent to him still claiming himself to be tenant of Dhanendra Mohan.
13. The trial court has recorded a categorical finding in paragraph 26 of the judgment that the defendanttenant has specifically denied the title of the landlord in paragraph 5 of his written statement and, on the one hand, in his evidence as D.W. 1, the defendant-tenant stated that ^^og lgh O;fDr dks fdjk;k nsuk pkgrk gS** but on the other, refused to recognize the decree passed by the Court in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 on the ground that it was illegal. The trial court considering the aforesaid facts held as under:
^^27- bl izdkj mijksDr fo’ys”k.k ds i’pkr
eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij igqWaprk gwWa fd oknh fookfnr nqdku dk yS.MykMZ gS
rFkk izfroknh }kjk vius izfrokn i= esa Hkh vius lk{; ds tfj, Hkh rFkk vius rdksZ
ds tfj, Hkh fookfnr nqdku ds oknh ds LokfeRo ls Li”V #i ls badkj fd;k gS
rFkk i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd oknh }kjk fookfnr nqdku esa vius iqu%
izos’k ds vf/kdkj dks NksM+ fn;k x;k gks vFkok izfroknh ds bl d`R; dks {kek dj
fn;k x;k gks A vr% izfroknh }kjk Li”V #i ls fookfnr nqdku ds oknh ds
LokfeRo ls badkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk ,slk djus dk izHkko ;g gS fd izfroknh fookfnr
nqdku ls csn[ky gksus ;ksX; gS A vr% okn fcUnq 3 ldkjkRed #i ls fu.khZr fd;k
tkrk gSA**
14. The trial court also noted that despite best efforts of the petitioner, Sri Dhanendra Mohan did not accept rent from the petitioner after 30.9.1999 and even money order sent by him was refused by Sri Dhanendra Mohan. As a matter of fact, the trial court held that the tenant-petitioner did not pay rent, even on demand, to Dr. Subodh Mohan, the actual landlord, who claimed to be the landlord in pursuance of decree in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999.
15. On the facts and in the circumstances narrated above, I find that there is clear denial of title of the respondent-landlord by the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments, decree and orders passed by the courts below. Concurrent, finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below against the petitioner on appraisal of documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, that he has denied the title of the respondent-landlord.
16. The petitioner shall vacate the disputed shop and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the same to Dr. Subodh Mohan, landlord within a month from today after payment of entire arrears of rent, if any, to him.
17. incase the petitioner fails to vacate the shop, in dispute, and make payment of the arrears of rent, if any, within the stipulated period, it will be open for the respondent-landlord to approach Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr, together with a certified copy of this judgment and order, who will ensure delivery of peaceful possession of the disputed shop to Dr. Subodh Mohan, the landlord forthwith. The arrears of rent, if any, from the petitioner, in that event, will be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.