Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order dated 18th August, 2001, passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlady, approached the revisional court by means of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the revisional court by order dated 20th December, 2004 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant, now petitioner approach this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'8' and '9', respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) In brief, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this petition, filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the tenant is occupying the accommodation under tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 400 and that the tenant has not paid rent since 1st August, 1990. The aforesaid accommodation in dispute was purchased by the respondent-landlady by registered sale deed 30th July, 1990 and this fact was communicated by the landlady by means of notice terminating the tenancy while demanding the rent from the tenant. On the aforesaid basis, the landlady prayed that since the tenant has not paid the rent since 1st August, 1990, therefore he is liable to be evicted from the accommodation in dispute. The aforesaid version of the respondent-landlady has been denied by the tenant and the tenant stated that the notice served by the landlady is not a valid notice. It is further submitted that the demand of rent by the landlady at the rate of Rs. 400 per month by splitting the tenancy is wholly illegal. The tenant has further relied upon the notice sent jointly by the tenant and his brother Om Prakash dated 27th July, 1993, wherein the correct facts were informed to the landlady. It was stated in the reply to the notice by the tenant and his brother Om Prakash that they had no knowledge of sale deed dated 30th July, 1990. It was, therefore, demanded by the tenant that a copy of the sale deed be made available so that it may be ascertained by the tenant as to what is the rent due and they will be in a position to pay the same to the landlady. The landlady, in spite of aforesaid notice, has not made available the copy of the registered sale deed by which she has purchased the property in dispute and filed the suit on incorrect facts. The tenant has also stated that the house bearing municipal number 4/530 situate in Mohalla Zafar Nawaz consists of ground floor and first floor which was under the tenancy of father of tenants, late Sri Ram Lal, and after the death of the father all the three brothers, namely, the petitioner Darshan Lal, Om Prakash and Jagdish inherited the tenancy. The landlady has illegally splitted the tenancy and, therefore, the suit was bad for that reason also. The tenants have also submitted that the entire building was under one tenancy and the rent was Rs. 90 per month.
(3.) The trial court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties have arrived at the conclusion that the notice, which was served upon the tenant-petitioner was a valid notice. With regard to the rate of rent, the trial court found that even assuming, though not admitted by the landlady, that the rate of rent is Rs. 90 per month as alleged by the tenant, the tenant would have deposited or produced the proof of paying the rent to the landlord even at the rate of Rs. 90 per month plus water tax etc., but even that has also not been deposited by the tenant what is admitted rent. A finding has been recorded that the tenant is in arrears of rent and the notice terminating the tenancy of the tenant was found to be valid notice, thus the suit was decreed by the trial court vide order dated 18th August, 2001.;