- (1.) Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the house in question was taken on rent by father of the petitioners from one Smt. Shanti Devi-landlady. After death of their father, petitioners inherited the tenancy. In the year 2002, S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for payment of rent and eviction, which was decreed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi in favour of the plaintiff-respondents vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2018. Against the said judgment, Revision No. 41 of 2018 was filed by petitioner-defendants, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi.
(3.) The basic argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier a sale deed was drafted and executed by husband of respondent-plaintiff no. 1 in the year 1995, but the same was not registered. Ultimately, for registration of said sale deed, Case No. 341 of 2000 (Om Prakash Sahu Vs. Vinod Kumar Seth) was filed for mandatory injunction. The said suit was allowed and sale deed was registered on 25.6.2011. He next submitted that in the plaint rent was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents w.e.f. 3.7.2009 to 13.6.2012. He further submitted that as the sale deed was registered on 25.6.2011, therefore, prior to that, the plaintiff-respondents were not entitled to recover the rent and suit was not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the plaintiff-respondents were never the landlord of the petitioners. In fact Smt. Shanti Devi was the landlady of the house in question from whom tenancy was obtained by father of the petitioners, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.;