- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No.65 of 1984, Smt. Krishna Kumari since deceased and survived by the petitioner Vs. Lal Bahadur and others wherein eviction of tenant respondent from tenanted accommodation was sought. The suit was dismissed by J.S.C.C./ Munsif (West), Hardoi on 29.11.1990. Against the said decree, petitioner landlord filed S.C.C. Revision No.21 of 1990, which was allowed on 30.05.1991 by First A.D.J., Hardoi and the matter was remanded to the trial court for returning the plaint under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act hence this writ petition. According to the plaint allegations, initially Ram Lal and Sohan Lal were owners of the land in dispute (defendants respondents are sons of Ram Lal), the original owners in the year 1952 through registered sale deed sold the house in dispute to Kamta Prasad the husband of the original plaintiff and Ram Lal and Sohan Lal took the house on rent from the husband of the original plaintiff at the rent of Rs.9 and six annas per month after executing the rent deed; subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.15/- per month and that since 13.08.1977 rent had not been paid, hence on the date of filing of the suit arrears amounted to Rs.1230/-. Before filing the suit, notice of termination of tenancy was also given, which was refused to be accepted by the defendants.
(3.) THE defendants pleaded that Ram Lal and Sohan Lal had not executed any sale deed and they were not the tenants. It was further pleaded that Kamta Prasad, husband of the original plaintiff was a money lender and actually it was a loan transaction which was entered into in between Kamta Prasad on the one hand and Sohan Lal and Ram Lal on the other hand and Kamta Prasad was usually advancing loan and getting the sale deeds executed and after return of the loan with interest he was executing reconveyance deeds in favour of the borrowers, hence the deed executed by Ram Lal and Sohan Lal in favour of Kamta Prasad was in fact a mortgage deed. It was further pleaded that after receiving the notice of the plaintiff, the defendants under Section 83 of Transfer of Property Act had deposited the principle amount of Rs.300/-. It was also pleaded that Nagarpalika initiated proceedings under U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 against the defendants and only their names were entered in the muncipal records and they were paying house tax, hence there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and plaint deserved to be returned under Section 23 of P.S.C.C. Act as question of title was involved.;