- (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant of S.C.C. Suit No. 176 of 1996, challenges the judgment and order dated 20.9.2007 passed by Judge Small Causes Courts Act, Lucknow decreeing the S.C.C. suit filed by the defendant No. 3-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant as well as the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Lucknow dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 3-plaintiff Km. Priti Kaur, claiming herself to be owner-cum-landlady of building known as 'Chauhar Singh Building' No. 279/54/24, situate in Mohalla Pandariba, Police Station-Naka Hindola, City Lucknow having purchased the same from Smt. Yuwan Priti Dhillon, widow of the late Major Harpreet Singh Dhillon by a registered sale deed dated September 10, 1991, filed the S.C.C. suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the defendant/petitioner-Sardar Jagjit Singh before Judge Small Causes, Lucknow and thus the ownership thereof, has been transferred in favour of the plaintiff in exchange for a price of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by a Registered instrument of sale dated 10.9.1991 as said above and the petitioner-defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 132.50, in respect of the tenant on the ground floor portion of the aforesaid building, which was being paid by the petitioner-defendant to the previous landlord till transfer of the aforesaid building, which is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972.
(2.) It has been averred that the petitioner-defendant is living on the ground floor portion of the aforesaid building. The premises in occupation of the petitioner-defendant consists of five living rooms, two kotharis, two covered verandahs, one garage (at the back), one Court-yard, one kitchen, flush latrine and one bath-room. It has further been said that on 10.9.1991, the date of purchase of the property, defendant No. 3-plaintiff herself duly informed the petitioner-defendant the factum of the purchase of the aforesaid building by her and, thereafter, continued to request the petitioner-defendant to pay rent to her. The previous owner-cum-landlord also gave an intimation to the petitioner-defendant to the effect that the aforesaid building had been transferred by sale, by them, to the defendant No. 3-plaintiff, on 10.9.1991 and the petitioner-defendant was required to pay subsequent rent of the property leased to the defendant-plaintiff.
(3.) On 12.10.1995 the plaintiff, through her Counsel, sent to the defendant, an intimation in writing, by registered post, acknowledgment due, intimating to him about the transfer of ownership of the aforesaid building in her favour and requesting him to pay to the plaintiff, the entire rent in arrear, amounting to Rs. 6,492.50 at the rate of Rs. 132.50 per month, for the period 10.9.1991 to 9.10.1995. The said notice of intimation was duly served upon the defendant on 17.10.1995, but the petitioner failed to pay the rent.;