ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions arising out of similar set of facts raises common questions of law, therefore, were heard and decided together by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners-defendants filed these writ petitions against the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court whereby the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners-defendants against the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under : Dr. Subodh Mohan, arrayed as respondent No. 1 in these two writ petitions filed SCC Suit bearing No. 1 of 2002 against Rakesh Kakkar and SCC Suit No. 2 of 2002 against Kunwar Baldeo for ejectment of the tenants-petitioners in the writ petition who were arrayed as defendants in these two suits with the allegation that respondent No. 1 in this writ petition is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute by virtue of a decree passed by Civil Judge Senior Division Bulandshahar in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999, dated 30-5-2001 Dhanendra Mohan v. Suresh Chandra Agrawal wherein the accommodation in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff as a result of the partition of the Hindu undivided family and the petitioners-defendants were the tenant in the disputed accommodation. According to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the Suit No. 1 of 2002 the rent payable by the tenants was at the rate of Rs. 272/- per month and in the Suit No. 2 of 2002 Rs. 198/- per month. Since the tenants have paid rent upto 30th September 1999 and with effect from 1-10-1999 the rent was not paid, therefore, a notice of demand was sent stating therein that the plaintiff is the owner by virtue of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 and that the tenants are in arrears of rent beyond 30-9- 1999 and notice directed that within one month from the date of receipt of the notice if the arrears are not paid the tenancy shall be deemed to have terminated. This notice was individually served on the tenants on 11th December, 2001 and the petitioners-tenants replied to the said notice on 13th December, 2001 denying therein that the plaintiff is the owner and the landlord of the accommodation in dispute and further that they were in arrears of rent, therefore, they termed the suit as mischievous and frivolous and tenants have also set up the case that Smt. Shashi Agarwal was the landlord of the disputed accommodation and they are liable to pay the rent to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. They further alleged that they have paid rent to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. With regard to the decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999, they have said that this decree is nullity and they are not bound by this decree. The trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed as many as six issues and heard the parties counsel at length after parties adduced the evidence as it is clear from the detailed order passed by the trial Court.
(3.) REGARDING issue No. 1 as to whether the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the disputed property, the trial Court recorded finding that Smt. Shashi Agarwal was no doubt realizing the rent but the property belongs to undivided Hindu family and by virtue of partition decree passed in Original suit No. 817 of 1999 the accommodation in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff. After 30-9-1999 or after filing of the suit neither Smt. Shashi Agarwal has realized any rent nor any rent was paid to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. Smt. Shashi Agarwal as well as the plaintiff informed the respective tenants including petitioners in these writ petitions, that the plaintiff is landlord and owner of the accommodation in dispute and is entitled to realize the rent. Thereupon individual notice was given by the plaintiff to the tenants demanding the arrears of rent beyond 30th September, 1999 since the rent and arrears were not paid, the tenancy stand terminated.;