- (1.) ORDER dated 13.11.2013 passed in this writ petition (on the order sheet) is quoted below: "Heard Sri Kaushik Chaterji, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of two of the legal representatives of original respondent No.3 on restoration applications and merit of the writ petition Application for substitution of legal representations of respondent No.3 has already been allowed. All the restoration applications are allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same. Order dated 23.04.2013 dismissing the restoration application in default and order dated 07.02.2006 dismissing the writ petition in default are set aside. Writ Petition is restored. Judgment reserved. On inquiry from court, learned counsel for tenants respondents has stated that in case matter is decided in his favour, he agrees for reasonable enhancement of rent with effect from the date of judgment of this court. "
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by them against tenant original respondent No.3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives. Out of the four petitioners three (petitioners No.1 to 3) are sons of Sajan Kumar. At the time of filing of the writ petition, petitioners No.2 and 3 were minor under the guardianship by their father Sajan Kumar. Previously the owner landlady of the house in dispute was Smt. Santan Devi. She sold the house in dispute to the four petitioners through four different sale deeds of 1980. Rate of rent is Rs.125/ - per month. Before filing the suit notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent was given by the petitioners to the tenant on 10/14 August 1982. Thereafter, the suit for eviction (S.C.C. Suit No.29 of 1982, Dharmpal and others Vs. Chetumal) was instituted.
(3.) J .S.C.C. Lakhimpur Kheri decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of default on 04.04.1987. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant in the suit. Against the said decree, tenant respondent No.3, Chetumal filed S.C.C. Revision No.98 of 1987. First A.D.J., Lakhimpur allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 06.07.1987, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for eviction but affirmed the same for recovery of arrears of rent. The said judgment of the lower revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. The tenant had pleaded that he was not shown the sale deeds even though he demanded the same from petitioners hence he was in doubt about the ownership landlord -ship of the plaintiffs and for this reason he deposited the rent under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.;