Tarun Agarwala, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Istiaque Ahmad, the learned Counsel duly assisted by Mr. T. A. Khan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. The facts and the controversy leading to the filing of the writ petition in a nutshell is, that the opposite party alleges himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question. It is alleged that he had purchased the premise by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1982 from the previous owner Ranveer Singh alias Ravindra Shamsher Jung. It is alleged that the original tenant was Abdul Hamid and, upon his death, his heirs became the statutory tenants. The opposite party landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenants and for arrears alleging that the Defendants had not paid any rent from 27.12.1982 till 26.06.1991 amounting to Rs. 19,201.50 paise and inspite of requests and service of notice of demand, the Defendants failed to pay the rent. Eventually, the notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued determining the tenancy after the expiry of six months, which came to an end on 15.01.1992, inspite of which the Defendants did not pay the rent and nor vacated the premises. Hence, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages was filed.
3. The Defendants appeared and filed the written statements and denied the ownership of the Plaintiff. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff was not the owner or landlord of the property in question and that the alleged sale deed was a fabricated piece of document, which Cannot be taken into consideration. In the additional written statement, the Defendants admitted the receipt of the notice and submitted that in reply to the said notice, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant was denied and that the ownership of the Plaintiff was also denied.
4. The Judge Small Causes Court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the notice was issued which was duly received and inspite of service of notice, the Defendants did not pay the arrears of rent and that the tenancy was determined. The trial court further found that the Defendants have failed to prove their case, namely, that they were the owners of the property in question. They also failed to prove that they were the lessee of the premises in question or that the State Government was the owner of the property in question. The trial court, however, found that the tenants admitted that in an another litigation, they were the tenants and that the owner was Ranveer Shamsher Jung from whom the Plaintiff had purchased the property by means of a registered sale deed. The trial court, consequently, concluded that the Plaintiff purchased the property by means of a registered sale deed and that the rent was not paid by the Defendants and that a notice of demand was issued and thereafter the tenancy was determined. Consequently, the trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent and for eviction.
5. Some of the Defendants, being aggrieved, filed a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Court Act. The revisional court, after considering the material evidence on record, affirmed the judgment of the trial court and maintained the decree of eviction and for arrears of rent. The Defendants, being aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, have preferred the present writ petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised several submissions challenging the validity and veracity of the orders passed by the courts below. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the notice, which is alleged to have been sent by the Plaintiff, was not a notice of determination of the tenancy in as much as there is nothing to indicate in the plaint that the tenancy was determined. Further, no date of the issuance of such notice was indicated and consequently, on this score, since the notice was invalid, the suit could not proceed under the Small Causes Court Act. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is bereft of merit. The written statement and the evidence which has been brought on record clearly shows that a notice of demand was received by the Petitioner. There is no averment either in the written statement or in the writ petition that the notice, which was sent by the Plaintiff, was only a notice of demand and was not a notice determining the tenancy. On the other hand, paragraph 5 of the plaint clearly indicates that the tenancy was determined upon the expiry of six months on 15th January, 1992.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that a bald allegation was made, namely, that the Petitioners were in arrears of rent and, on this bald allegation, the suit could not proceed nor could it be decreed since the essential ingredients contemplated under Sub-clause (2) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not mentioned in the plaint. In this regard, the relevant portion of Section 20(2)(a) is extracted hereunder:
(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand:
Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act IV of 1925) has issued a certificate that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act orwhere he has died by enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "four months"in this clause shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words "one year".
8. On the basis of the aforesaid provision, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a specific averment should have been made by the Plaintiff landlord in the plaint that the tenants were in arrears of rent for not less than four months, which the tenant has failed to pay within one month from the date of service of notice of demand. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the courts below have erred in not giving any finding that the Plaintiff was not the owner, nor any finding has been given that there was a landlord tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and the Petitioners. Upon a perusal of the entire judgments of the courts below, an irresistible conclusion has been drawn by the court to the effect that the Plaintiff was the owner of the premises in question by virtue of the sale deed which he executed from the erstwhile owner. The court below further concluded that the Petitioners were unable to prove their title as owners of the premises in question. On the other hand, the Petitioners have admitted that they were the tenants. Consequently, an irresistible conclusion is drawn that after the purchase of the property by the Plaintiff and upon a notice of demand being given, the Defendants refused to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff had become the new owner. Consequently, there existed a relationship of a landlord-tenant which the Petitioners have denied and, by mere denial, this relationship cannot be said that it does not exist.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that the courts below only discussed the case of the Defendants and that the courts below failed to prove the case of the Plaintiff namely that the tenants were in arrears of rent and that the notice was sent or the fact that the tenancy was determined. The learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff has to prove the case on the strength of the averments made in his plaint and on the strength of the evidence which he files before the trial court and that the suit cannot be decreed on the weakness of the Defendants'' case. There is no dispute on the proposition enunciated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, but, upon a perusal of the impugned judgment, the court finds that the Petitioners, who were the tenants, were unable to justify their stand.
11. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that there is no manifest error either on facts or on law in the orders passed by the courts below, which requires interference in a writ jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
