A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition. It arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiffs -Respondents No. 3 to 5 for ejectment of the Petitioner as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff -Respondents, both for the ejectment of the Petitioner from the disputed shop as well as for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 194/ -for the period from 11 -3 -1977 to 9 -4 -1978 as well as pendentelite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per month.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the plaint case was that the Defendant was a tenant of the disputed shop being shop No. 50, Khirkhi Bazar, Hapur, in the district of Ghaziabad. The Plaintiffs purchased the disputed shop under three sale deeds in March, 1977 from the previous owners of the shop and they became the owners and landlords of the disputed shop. The Plaintiffs informed the Defendant of the transfer of the shop. The Defendant did not pay any rent to the Plaintiff from 11 -3 -1977. Consequently a composite notice of demand and termination of the tenancy was served on the Defendant. The Defendant neither paid the arrears of rent demanded nor vacated the shop. Hence the suit. The defence of the Petitioner was that he was a tenant of one Husain All, who was the original owner of the disputed shop. Husain Ali had five sons, namely, Ahsan Ali, Asghar Ali, Ashraf Ali, Aman Ali and Raza Ali out of whom Ahsan Ali, AsgharAli and Ashraf Ali created Waqf -alal -aulad of their 3/5th shares which included the shop in dispute The shop was thus a waqf property. In June, 1977 the Defendant received a notice from one Shaukat Ali daughter's son of Asghar Ali aforesaid, who asked the Defendant not to pay rent to any one else. He claimed to have inherited 1/5th share in the properties, including the shop. In this notice he further asserted that any purported will of the waqf properties in favour of the Plaintiff was null and void as the vendors had no authority to sell the properties vesting in the waqf. In view of this a bonafide doubt arose in the mind of the Defendant as to the person entitled to receive the rent in respect of the shop and consequently the Defendant started depositing rent Under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Defendant was hence not in arrears of rent as the entire rent demanded had already been duly deposited Under Section 30. Moreover, the suit involved determination of a disputed question of title and having regard to the nature of the controversies involved the same was not triable by a small cause Court.
(3.) ON the pleading of the parties relevant issues were framed by the trial Court, namely. Small Cause Court Hapur (Ghaziabad).;