M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THE revisionists were the defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972, hereinafter called as 'the Act'. By a judgment dated 10 4 -1992 the suit has been decreed in favour of the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners are evicted from the premises. Decree for arrears of rent also is passed.
(2.) IN the plaint filed before the Court below the Respondent No. 2 seems to have sought the eviction of the Petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent but the Petitioners came to be evicted under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act. It is held by the Court below that the Petitioners have denied the title of the Respondent No. 2, therefore, they are liable to be evicted from the suit premises. Clause (f) of sub -section (2) of section 20 of the Act reads as under : 20(2)(f) - - that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord, and the latter has not waived his right of re -entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant. This ground for eviction appears to have been furnished to the Plaintiff by the Petitioners by alleging in the written statement that the Plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the premises in question. This ground of eviction was not urged in the plaint. However, when the written statement was filed, the Plaintiff filed a replica and in para 2 of the said replica the Plaintiff stated as under : 2. That the Defendants have renounced their character as tenants of the Plaintiff. The Defendants have further denied the title of the Plaintiff (landlord) and the Plaintiff has not condoned the conduct of the Defendants occasioned by their denial of title and the Plaintiff has not waived his rights of re -entry. The Plaintiff has thus acquired a right under Section 20(2)(f) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 to evict the Defendants on this ground also.
(3.) THE Court below has framed six issues and the issues No. 1 and 4 have been decided together. These two issues relate to the plaintiff's status as owner and landlord of the premises under the occupation of the Petitioners and the effect of the defendants' denial of title of the Plaintiff. Both these issues have been decided in favour of the Plaintiff -Respondent No. 2. The issues regarding damage caused to the property by the Petitioners and the Petitioners having committed default in payment of rent were decided against the Respondent No. 2 and in favour of the Petitioners. Issue No. 5 on which the suit was initially founded has also been decided in favour of the Petitioners.;