- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition by the tenant is directed against a revisional order dated 31.1.2009 by which the suit of the respondent-landlord has been decreed for eviction and arrears of rent etc. The respondent-landlord instituted a SCC suit No. 5 of 2000 against the petitioner-tenant inter-alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises at Rs. 25/- per month which was the joint property of his father Upendra Narain and his two brothers Rajendra Narain and Ram Narain. A partition took place between the brothers vide a decree of partition passed in suit No. 17 of 1987 by an order dated 22.7.1987 in pursuance of which the disputed accommodation came to the exclusive share of Upendra Narain father of the present landlord. Thereafter, a family settlement took place in his father's family and where the disputed accommodation fell into the exclusive share of the respondent-landlord but despite notices by the landlord and intimation by his brothers and sisters that he had become entitled to receive the rent, the rent was neither paid nor premises vacated, forcing him to file the aforesaid suit on the ground of arrears since April, 1991.
(2.) The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant inter-alia stating that the rent was Rs. 6/- per month and the tenancy was only with Ram Narain and for the first time he came to know about the partition decree in P.A. Case No. 62 of 1992 and it is contended that he was never a tenant of Upendra Narain and the family settlement between the landlord and his brother and sister was fraudulent and it was oral and was never acted upon and until and unless the landlord gets his title declared from a competent Court, he would not be entitled for rent. However, he allegedly deposited the rent in proceedings under section 30 and also paid at the first hearing and claimed the benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act).
(3.) The Trial Court framed as many as 6 issues and held that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties at least from April, 1991. On the question of rate of rent, it held that it was Rs. 6/- per month. With regard to validity of the notice and deposit of rent, it held that the notice was valid and the tenant was a defaulter. However, it held that since the tenant had deposited the rent at the first hearing, it granted protection of section 20(4) of the Act and dismissed the suit.;