K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS Bench has been constituted to decide the reference made by one of us on October 23, 1980.
(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are these. Suit No. 23 of 1976 was filed by the plaintiff opposite party for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendant applicant in respect of premises no. 121/625, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. THE plaintiff alleged that he was the exclusive owner and landlord of the disputed premises and had let it out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 180/-. In the written statement filed in Suit No. 2109 of 1971 the defendant renounced his character as that of a tenant and further denied the plaintiff's title, hence the plaintiff has acquired a right under Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 to evict the defendant on the said ground. The suit was contested by the defendant, and it was alleged by him that the accommodation in question was let out to him by the plaintiff's father and that he had been given to understand that the premises belonged to the plaintiff's father but was purchased and constructed in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant further asserted that he had been informed that on the death of the plaintiff's father, the property devolved upon the plaintiff's mother brothers and sisters. On the pleadings of the parties, the Judge Small Causes framed a number of issues. Holding that by renouncing his character as that of a tenant and by denying the plaintiff's title as landlord, the defendant was liable to eviction under Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, the Judge Small Causes decreed the suit, against which the present revision was filed.
(3.) THE question that arose for decision before the Single Judge was whether the requirements of Section 20 (2) (f) had been established. For the plaintiff, reliance had been placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hashmat Husain v. Sagir Ahmad, AIR 1958 Alld. 842. In that case, the Division Bench was called upon to consider the applicability of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act and also the question whether Section 3 (1) (f) of U. P. Act III of 1947, which was similar to Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, applied to the case. The argument advanced on behalf of the defendant was that he had not renounced his character as tenant and had also not denied the title of the plaintiff-landlord and, therefore, he could not be evicted under this clause.;