- (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Baladiha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by Munna Lal in the year 1987, assailing the order and judgment dated 29.8.1987 passed by 1st additional District Judge, Sultanpur as well as the orders dated 9.5.1991 passed on the review application so preferred by means of amendment.
(2.) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, petitioner-Munna Lal and opposite party No. 2-Kailash Nath Agrawal died and as such, petitioner's legal heirs, namely, Prem Kumar and Pradeep Kumar and opposite party No. 2's legal heirs, namely, Arun Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Bala Devi have been substituted as petitioners No. 1/1,1/2 and opposite parties No. 2/1, 2/2, respectively.
(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that House No. 58-Aa, situate at Mohalla parking Chowk City Sultanpur was fallen in the share of one Ashrafi Lal, son of Tulsi Ram vide partition dated 25.1.1950 but later on Asharfi Lal in lieu of the services rendered gifted the house in question in favour of the petitioner by means of a registered gift-deed dated 22.3.1981. In these circumstances, the petitioner because the owner and landlord of the house in question. Lower portion which is rented to the opposite party No. 2-Kailash Nath Agarwal on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, whereas the upper portion of the house in question, petitioner is in his possession. As the opposite party No. 2-Kailash Nath did not pay the rent of the house in question to the petitioner with effect from 27.3.1981 to 8.11.1982, a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was sent to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2, instead of complying with the notice, sent a reply to the notice vide letter dated 3.12.1982, wherein he has disputed the little of the landlord with regards to house in question and further stated that rent was deposited in the Court in the name of Asharfi Lal. In these backwards, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a arrears of rent and for ejectment of the opposite party No. 2 which was registered as 1 of 1984, under Act No. XIII of 1972. Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2. In reply to the notice, the opposite party No. 2 had put in appearance in the suit and filed his written statement, to which the petitioner has filed replication. After going through the pleadings and on the basis of evidence, the Trial Court, vide order dated 2.12.1986, decreed the suit for eviction form the premises in dispute and also ordered for recovery of rent and damages with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The tenant was allowed one month's time to vacate the shop in question.;