- (1.) Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by decree of eviction passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 18, Deoria dated 7.12.2005 and revisional order dated 12.7.2006 whereby petitioner's revision has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a sale-deed executed in favour of petitioner's sons on 1.1.1996 by Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Ram Nagina and Smt. Anusuiya Devi wife of Ram Pravesh Pandey and, therefore, petitioner's sons having become owner of property in question, the impugned orders are wholly illegal since respondents No. 3 and 4 were not the owner of accommodation in question so as to entitle them to file the suit in question. It is alleged that property in dispute was auctioned by B.N.W. Railways on 7.11.1934 to One Habibullah son of Hafizdin. Habibullah executed a sale-deed on 18.6.1992 in favour of Amirullah son of Abdul Shakur, who executed another sale-deed dated 27.9.1993 in favour of Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Ram Nagina and Smt. Anusuiya Devi wife of Ram Pravesh Pandey from whom petitioner's sons, namely, Abdullah Qurashi, Abdul Karim Qurashi, Abdul Mazid Qurashi, Abdul Vahid Qurashi and Abdul Hakim Qurashi purchased vide sale-deed dated 1.1.1996, hence respondents No. 3 and 4 have no right on the shop in question. However, this submission of petitioner has been negatived by Courts below observing that all the alleged sale-deed show a vacant land, subject-matter of transaction therein, and there was no transfer of any building by anyone. On the contrary, the suit in question relates to a shop in which admittedly petitioner had entered into as a tenant of respondents No. 3 and 4 and had paid rent also in past. At no point of time the aforesaid shop was ever sold by respondents No. 3 and 4 to anyone.
(3.) Considering the definition of "landlord" under section 3(j) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 since the shop was never subject-matter of any transaction of sale and petitioner was a tenant in the said shop, it cannot be said that regarding shop in question there were any dispute relating to its ownership. It was never shown to have been transferred to petitioner's sons. This finding that various sale-deeds relied by petitioner relates to a vacant land and there was no transaction of any building therein, has not been challenged in the entire writ petition as incorrect or perverse. The Courts below have held that dispute relates to shop in which petitioner has entered as tenant of respondents No. 3 and 4 and he failed to make payment of rent and committed default. These findings are not shown perverse or incorrect. Therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the two judgments assailed in this writ petition warranting interference under limited scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.;