Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE above revision has been preferred under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1988 passed in SCC Suit No. 12 of 1986 whereby suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and actual eviction of the defendant -tenant has been decreed.
(2.) HOUSE No. 2085 new No. 1784 situate in Bahadurpura, Dampier Nagar, Mathura was owned by one Ashok Kumar Chhonkar who let it out to the defendant -applicant herein on monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. It was sold to one Rajendra Kumar through registered sale deed dated 6.7.1984 who sold it to the present plaintiff Madan Lal through sale deed dated 18.1.1986. Rajendra Kumar informed the defendant -tenant about the sale deed dated 18.1.1986 through a notice dated 5.5.1986 and the defendant -tenant was asked to pay the arrears of rent prior to 18.1.1986 to him and pay the future rent to the present plaintiff Madan Lal, the vendee. The defendant -tenant failed to pay the rent to the vendee who after serving the notice on defendant on 23.8.1986 filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages pendente lite and future. The suit was contested on the pleas inter -alia that Ashok Kumar Chhonkar was Secretary of Chhonkar Vikas Udyog Mathura and had taken a loan of Rs. 65,000/ - on various dates from U.P Gram Udyog for the purposes of Chhonkar Vikas Parishad. The house in dispute was mortgaged by him in favour of his creditor namely U.P Gram Udyog. The legality of execution of the sale deed by Ashok Kumar in favour of Rajendra Kumar who sold it to the plaintiff were disputed on the allegations that the transactions are sham transactions. In other words, the title of the plaintiff was disputed.
(3.) THE trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following four issues: 1. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant has committed default, within the meaning of Section 20 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887? 4. To what relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled?;