S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition arises out of a suit filed by the landlord respondent praying for a decree of ejectment of the defendants- petitioners from the premises in dispute under their tenancy and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3535/- from them by way arrears of rent from 10-5-74 to 18-2-77 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month besides recovery of the amount by way of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The suit had been filed on the ground that the defendants were defaulters within the meaning of section 20 of the U. P. Act No 13 of 1972 and inspite of the composite notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent having been served nothing was paid by the defendants, hence the suit. THIS suit was contested by the defendants on the assertions that they had not committed any default in the payment of rent and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree as claimed.
(2.) IT may be noticed that prior to the riling of the suit giving rise to the present writ petition, the landlord-respondent had filed a small cause suit being S. C. Suit no. 229 of 1970 wherein they had claimed a decree for the ejectment of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants apart from the recovery of arrears of rent etc. This suit was decided on 28-5-73 and under the judgment and decree of that date the relief of ejectment of the defendants from the premises in dispute was refused but the plaintiff was found entitled to be amount of rent for which the suit was decreed specifying that the amount of rent for the period 31-5-73 had been deposited in court which could be withdrawn by the plaintiff and further indicating that the rent for the period beginning from 1-6-73 will be payable. In support of the claim that they were not defaulters the petitioners defendants relied upon a receipt alleged to have been issued by Prakash Chandra, one of the landlords acknowledging payment of Rs. 4000/-. This receipt which was filed on record by the defendant petitioners is dated 7-1-77. The defendants-petitioners claimed that they had paid an amount of Rs. 2000/- on 13-6-76 and remaining amount in the month of July, 1976. The receipt in question according to the defendants acknowledged the amount paid by them to Prakash Chandra in the months of June and July 1976. The petitioners-tenants also sought to rely upon a tape recorded conversation between Nizamuddin, Iqramuddin and Prakash Chandra which was said to have been recorded on 14-6-76. According to the petitioners- tenants this tape recorded conversation contained an unequivocal admission of Prakash Chandra regarding his having accepted the amount of Rs 4000/- as claimed by the defendants.
(3.) BESIDES this tape recorded conversation which allegedlly contained the admission of Prakash Chandra indicated above the petitioners tenants also produced expert evidence for proving that the receipt relied upon by them contained the signatures of Prakash Chandra. Apart from the above the petitioners tenants also led oral evidence to prove the payment rent and further to prove the tape recorded conversation as well as receipt to which a reference has already been made above The plaintiff-landlords, however, denied issuing any receipt and Prakash Chandra specifically asserted that he had never issued the receipt relied upon by the petitioners-tenants and denied his having signed the said receipt. He also asserted that the tape recorded conversation relied upon by the petitioners-tenants did not contain his voice. Plaintiff-landlord also examined a hand-writing expert and brought on record the expert opinion seeking to establish that the alleged signatures of Prakash Chandra which were claimed to be there on the receipt in question were not his signatures.;