- (1.) Heard Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as revisional court order dated 12.01.2004 .
(3.) Suit No. 65 of 1996 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant-respondent no. 1 on the allegations that he was the tenant of the disputed accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- excluding municipal taxes. It was further pleaded that the house in dispute as well as another house situate in Gokulpura, Agra belonged to Shri Ram Krishna Asthana, father of the plaintiff, now represented by the present petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3. After his death, it was jointly inherited by them and since the plaintiff was residing outside Agra, the rent of the house in dispute was realised by respondent no. 3 herein. In January 1994, the properties were amicably partitioned and the house in dispute was allotted in the exclusive share of the petitioners, though respondent no. 3 was authorised to recover the rent from the tenant. It was further pleaded that in August 1994, when the plaintiff demanded the accounts from respondent no. 3, it was discovered that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent for a long time. The oral partition entered earlier was reduced in writing in the form of a memorandum on 09.08.1994 and the tenant was specifically informed that he was required to remit all the rent including arrears to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that tenant has substantially damaged the tenanted accommodation and has made additions and structural alteration diminishing its value and utility and his tenancy was terminated vide registered notice dated 23rd September, 1995 and despite service of notice, he has not vacated nor paid the arrears. The suit was contested by the tenant (respondent no. 1 herein) by filing a written statement alleging therein, inter alia, that plaintiff is one of the co-owner/landlord of the property in dispute and rent up to 31.12.1995 has been duly paid to respondent no. 3 and since 01.01.1996, the same is being regularly deposited in the Court, as such, there is no arrears. The allegations of family partition and service of notice was also denied.;