JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by respondent No. 2 on the ground of default in payment of rent and denial of title. The property in dispute is a residential portion comprising of two rooms, veranda, court yard and chabootra on ground floor in house No. 119 /449 situate at Darshanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar. Rate of rent is Rs. 8.75 that is less than Rs. 9/- per month. The suit was registered as SCC suit No. 304 of 1988 on the file of JSCC (II), Kanpur Nagar.
3. The previous landlord was Mannoo Lal Kedar Nath. There were income tax dues against him hence his house containing the portion in dispute was attached and sold by income tax authorities. The income tax authorities sold the portion in dispute to landlord-respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar Raghubanshi through registered sale deed dated 4.10.1985. The trial court held that the sale deed dated 4.10.1985 was void as it was not proved by respondent No. 2 that the auction proceedings were properly conducted. The version of the tenant that income tax authorities were in collusion with respondent No. 2 and sale deed dated 4.10.1985 was result of the said collusion was accepted of the trial court. Ultimately trial court held that relationship of landlord aid tenant was not established. It may be mentioned that tenant had
himself filed suit No. 248 of 1986 claiming a right of preamption.
4. Thereafter trial court held that in any case tenant had deposited the entire rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing hence he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972. Ultimately trial court dismissed the suit on 17.4.1997. Against the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent No. 2 filed SCC revision No. 115 of 1997. IX A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of the landlord through judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 which is challenged through this writ petition.
5. Revisional court held that respondent No. 2 had fully approved the title. In respect of benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, revisional court held that as tenant had denied the title of the landlord hence he was not entitled to the benefit of the said Sub-section.
6. I fully agree with the first finding of the revisional court. Income Tax authorities had sold the portion/property in dispute to respondent No. 2. The original owner/defaulter had not questioned the said sale deed. The tenant could not question the said sale proceedings. Moreover, after execution of sale deed it was not open to the tenant who was in the position of a third party to question the validity of proceedings of auction and sale. In any case unless the sale was directly challenged, it could not be sought to be ignored as void in incidental proceedings. There is always a presumption of correctness in discharge of official acts.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the sale deed did not relate to the portion in dispute. However, this point
was not raised before the courts below. Before the courts below only the validity of the sale deed was challenged and not its relation with the portion in dispute. Accordingly, the said point cannot be permitted to be raised. In any case learned Counsel has not been able to substantiate the said point.
8. However, as far as second point is concerned I do not agree with the view taken by the revisional court. It is correct that a tenant who denies the title of the landlord is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. However, this proposition will have to be read alongwith Section 116 Evidence Act which prohibits the tenant from questioning the title of the landlord who inducted him as tenant. However, a tenant is entitled to question the derivative title of the subsequent landlord. In the instant case petitioner-tenant was not inducted by respondent No. 2, hence he could not be estopped from questioning the title of respondent No. 2. In this regard reference may be made to Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash.
9. Accordingly, I hold that even though respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute however, suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that tenant had coupled with provision of Section 20(4) of the Act.
10. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Judgment and order passed by the revision court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored. (However, the finding of the trial court that respondent No. 2 was not the landlord is set aside).
11. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004(2) A.R.C. 64 that
while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Accommodation in dispute is situate in Kanpur which is most expensive city of Uttar Pradesh. Rent of Rs. 9/-per month is rather ridiculous. Property in dispute contains two rooms alongwith other amenities.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from June 2007 onwards tenant-petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant.
