Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE basic question involved in the present writ petition is whether the Respondents herein have denied the title of their landlord, the Petitioners and thus, are liable for eviction under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE property No. S -21/11, Englishiya Line, Varanasi is the property in dispute. Its original owner and landlord according to the tenants herein was Smt. Aisha Begum widow of Abdul Shakur who had left for Pakistan leaving the said property. The said property was declared as an evacuee property and was vested in the Central Government through the custodian evacuee property. It was put to auction. In auction it was purchased by Mela Ram and Chunni Lal jointly. They were the father and son. The Petitioners are the sons of Chunni Lal and thus are grandsons of Mela Ram. The auction sale was confirmed on 8th of October, 1956. Sri Gokul Das (the original tenant), the predecessor in interest was in occupation of the said property as tenant and he was directed to pay the rent to the auction purchasers i.e. Mela Ram and Chunni Lal. It so happened that Mela Ram expired on 21.2.1957 and by registered Will had bequeathed the property to his minor grandsons, the present Petitioners. It appears that due to the death of Mela Ram issuance of sale certificate was delayed by the custodian on account of the objections raised by Gokul Das, the predecessor in interest of the Respondents -tenants. It has come on record that ultimately on 6th of December, 1988 sale certificate and conveyance deed were executed in favour of Chunni Lal and the present Petitioners, on the basis of Will dated 8.2.1957 executed by Mela Ram. The original tenant Gokul Das expired in the year 1982 leaving behind the Respondent tenants herein. The heirs of Gokul Das after issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the Petitioners instituted suit No. 561 of 1989 in the Court of City Munsif, Varanasi impleading the State of U.P., Managing Officer, Custodian Evacuee property, Chunni Lal and the present Petitioners as Defendants restraining them to dispossess the Plaintiffs i.e. the present Respondent -tenants from the premises in suit otherwise than in due course of law. The said suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that they have perfected the title by adverse possession and also by denying the title of Chunni Lal and the present Petitioners, in the property in dispute.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner -landlords, the tenants herein who had instituted the suit No. 43 of 1991 denied the title of the landlord, therefore, are liable for eviction under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act. The present Petitioners along with their father Chunni Lal instituted SCC Suit No. 43 of 1991 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes against the tenant -Respondents on the ground of denial of their title by the tenants in the suit No. 561 of 1989 as set out in the plaint therein. The Defendants -tenants -Respondents herein have set up title in themselves in the aforesaid suit No. 561 of 1989 and therefore, they are liable for eviction, it was pleaded in the suit giving rise to the present petition.;