- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 24-7-2003 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Agra on an application (Paper No. 85 Ga) filed in S. C. C. Revision No. 66 of 2000.
(2.) FROM the assertions made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 1 (respondent first set) as plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages etc. against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent second set) and one Smt. Tulsa Devi (defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively in the said suit) in respect of the shop, referred to hereinafter. The said Suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 265 of 1994. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said suit that the respondent No. 1 (respondent first set) was the owner and landlord of Building Nos. 6/334 and 6/334/1 to 3 situated at Belanganj, Agra; and that the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) was a tenant in a portion thereof consisting of one shop, bearing Municipal Nos. 6/334/3 (new) and 6/334/2 (old) on a rental of Rs. 33 per month besides water tax. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed shop". It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said suit that the disputed shop was allotted to the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1) in the said suit) by allotment order No. 104/ch/rc/76 dated 28-10-1976; and that the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) was very irregular in payment of rent and water tax, and he had not paid the rent and water tax from 1-4-1994 inspite of repeated demands and requests of the respondent No. 1 herein (plaintiff in the said suit); and that after the commencement of the tenancy, the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) started business in the said shop in the name and style of M/s. Chandra Machinery Store; and that recently on making enquiry it was revealed that the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit), much after the commencement of the tenancy, admitted the respondent No. 3 herein (defendant No. 2 in the said suit) as partner in the said business, namely, M/s. Chandra Machinery Store in or about April, 1977, and thereafter in or about August, 1980, admitted the said Smt. Tulsa Devi (defendant No. 3 in the said suit) as a partner in the said business without any right or authority or consent of the landlord; and that the respondent No. 3 herein (defendant No. 2 in the said suit) and the said Smt. Tulsa Devi (defendant No. 3 in the said suit) were not the members of the family of the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) within the meaning of Section 3 (g) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 Act (in short "the Act"); and that thus, the respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) sub-let the disputed shop in contravention of Section 25 of the Act.
(3.) IT was, inter alia, further alleged in the said suit that the respondent No. 1 herein (plaintiff in the said suit) sent registered notice of demand and to quit dated 12-9-1994 posted on 13-9-1994 through the counsel to the defendants in the said suit which was served upon the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) on 20-9-1994 and upon the defendant No. 3 (the said Smt. Tulsa Devi) on 19-9-1994 personally, but the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) neither paid arrears of rent and water tax nor vacated the disputed shop and sent an absolutely false and incorrect reply dated 4- 10-1994 through counsel. Copy of the plaint of the said suit has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.;