Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing impugned order dated 7/8/2010 passed by respondent No. 1, Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, Bareilly in SCC Revision No. 28 of 2009, M/s Arya Construction Designers registered office- Mirdhangali Bareilly and others v. Babu Tandon Lal alias Pappu and another. Brief facts of the case are that Arya Sabha, Bareilly executed a registered agreement dated 3.5.1989 in favour of respondent IInd set for construction of a shopping complex at Chaupla Road Bareilly. Respondent IInd set allotted shop No. 19, area 12'x18' in the complex @f Rs. 1200/- per month to the petitioner. Lease deed was executed on 6/7.11.2000 which was signed by respondent IInd set, the petitioner as well as respondent IIIrd set. It was mentioned therein that respondent IInd set will receive Rs. 60,000/- advance as security money (refundable) without interest from them which was paid to respondent IInd. It is claimed by the respondent IInd set that petitioner violated the terms of the lease-deed; that he and respondent IIIrd set had partitioned shop No. 19 aforesaid without permission from them. It is also claimed by respondent IInd set that the petitioner and respondent IIIrd set committed default in payment of rent of the aforesaid shop No. 19, since October, 2005 onwards and were harassing the own tenanted shop keepers by burning coal emitting thick smokes which has compelled the landlords to serve notice of termination of tenancy of shop No. 19 in question under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 19/20.7.2006. The petitioner and the respondent IIIrd set paid the rent to respondent IInd set in respect of partitioned shop No. 19. After receipt of rent respondent IInd set allotted part of shop No. 19 to the petitioner and the other part numbered as shop No. 19A to respondent IIIrd set on rent @ Rs. 600/- per month each. According to the respondent IInd set, the defendant respondent IIIrd set vacated shop No. 19A. Thereafter it was allotted to one Sartaz by respondent IInd set on same terms by executing another lease deed dated 1.6.2007.
(3.) IT is stated by the petitioner that the respondent IInd set has done all exercise with intention to create evidence that the terms of lease-deed dated 6/ 7.11.2000 have been violated by the petitioner so that eviction proceedings against him may be justified compelling the petitioner to file Original Suit No. 32 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bareilly against the respondent IInd set for restraining him from eviction. An injunction order dated 19.11.2007 was granted in favour of the petitioner calling for report of the Court Amin with regard to the site. Thereafter, respondent IInd set waived off the earlier notice dated 19/ 20.7.2006 and on 23.12.2006 issued a separate rent receipt to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and also validated the partitioned premises of shop No. 19 in shop No's. 19. The respondent IInd set appeared before the Court below and has filed their written statements annexing therewith photocopy of the notice relating to demand of arrears of rent dated 12.3.2007 alongwith photocopy of postal receipt. The petitioner submitted that in fact shop No. 19 which was let out to him at the rate of Rs. 1200.00 per month was never partitioned and his security amount of Rs. 30,000.00 is lying with the respondent IInd set; that he had offered rent for the months of December,2006, January and February, 2007 total amounting to Rs. 36,00/- but it was refused by the landlords, hence the amount of rent was sent through money order which was also not accepted by them and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there was no default by the petitioner towards payment of rent.;