Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the same was dismissed on 2nd September, 2004 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Revisional Court arising out of a suit of Small Causes.
(3.) The facts of the present case in brief are that the landlord-respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 71 per month plus taxes and since the property in question was ancestral property, it was therefore partitioned among the heirs, namely the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 15 and after the partition of property in the share of deceased Anand Swarup to whom the petitioner was paying rent. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit. Anand Swarup died and other complaints continued with the suit. It is case of the plaintiff that defendant-tenant has paid the rent with taxes up to 6th January, 1986 and thereafter he defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. Therefore, a notice dated 8th September, 1987 was served upon the petitioner-tenant terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant, which was served on the petitioner on 10th September, 1987. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner-tenant did not pay the rent and has submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice that the plaintiffs should furnish the evidence after the death of Anand Swarup, proof of ownership, which accordingly to the plaintiffs, has been furnished on 2nd November, 1987. The suit was therefore filed on the ground of default and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The defendants denied the plaint allegation on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The Trial Court framed as much as six issues, which are as under: "1. Whether there is any relationship of the landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant No. 1? 2. Whether defendant No. 1 has committed default in payment of rent, a stated in the plaint? 3. Whether the defendant is entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972? 4. Whether notice dated 9th September, 1987 is illegal? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the heirs, particularly daughter of deceased Jagdish Prasad?; and 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any relief -;