SHIV PRAKASH Vs. DISTT. JUDGE LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Rajieu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 and also perused the record.

(2.) The tenant-petitioner having lost from both the courts below, has preferred this writ petition for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2016, passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 10/2016 and the judgment and order dated 29.1.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 102 of 2014.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents no. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner with the allegation that they were the owners landlord of shop no. 1 with basement,, situated on the ground floor of the House No. 512/619 Nishatganj, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow. The premises in which the aforesaid shop is situated, was purchased by the respondents no. 3 and 4 from Shri Satish Chandra Agrawal and Dr. Jagdish Agrawal by means of the registered sale deed dated 27.6.201 The previous owners while executing sale deed to the respondents, also gave right to the respondents to realize outstanding arrears of rent from the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents issued a notice dated 6.7.2013 to the petitioner informing him about the purchase of the shop from the previous landlord. After the receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction being Regular Suit No. 108/2013 against the previous owners as well as against the respondents stating therein that they wanted to evict him by force. It has also been stated in the plaint that the respondents several times asked the petitioner to pay the rent but no rent was paid by the petitioner. Therefore another notice dated 5.6.2014 was issued to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy but even after the service of said notice on 7.6.2014, neither the rent was paid nor the shop was vacated. The petitioner on 4.7.2014 sent a reply through his advocate stating therein that he was not informed about the purchase of the house by the private respondents. The private respondents received reply of the notice on 7.7.2014. The petitioner was in arrears with effect from 1.4.2003 to 26.5.2014. The amount of water tax was also due but neither the rent nor water tax was paid and thus the petitioner committed default in payment of arrears of rent and was therefore liable for ejectment.