R.H.ZAIDI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.2.1988 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and the order dated 2.8.1991 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below. It appears that the petitioner filed suit No. 168 of 1983 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Jhansi for ejectment from the shop in dispute i.e. 144, Lakshman Ganj, Jhansi and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against respondent No. 3 on the ground that his tenancy was for a fixed term of 12 years which came into being by means of rent note dated 14.10.1968. The said period having expired and his tenancy having been terminated, the respondent No. 3 was, therefore, liable to be ejected from the shop in question and he was also liable to pay arrears of rent and damages. On receipt of the notices from the trial Court, the respondent No. 3 filed his written statement contending that his tenancy was not for a fixed term. Alternatively, it was pleaded that after expiry of 12 years, the petitioner permitted him to continue in occupation of the shop in question that the petitioner has been accepting rent for the same, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was a tenant by holding over as provided under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) THE trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 have produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The trial Court, after perusing the evidence on record, recorded findings on the relevant issues against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 3 and by judgment and order dated 15.2.1988 dismissed the suit. It was held that respondent No. 3 was not a tenant for a fixed term of 12 years, that the petitioner accepted the rent after expiry of the term of tenancy and permitted him to remain in occupation of the shop in dispute as a tenant which amounted tenancy to by holding over from month to month as provided under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the notice of demand and termination of tenancy was invalid. While dealing with issue No. 5, it was held that the respondent No. 3 was not a defaulter within the meaning of the term used under the Act. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 73 of 1988 before the Court below. The Court below has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 2.8.1991, hence the present petition.;