S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition was dismissed as abated after rejecting the substitution application through order dated 7.5.2001. The said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in-Civil Appeal No. 6711 of 2001 dated 24.9.2001 and High Court was directed to decide the writ petition on merit.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlord-respondent No. 3 Kashi Ram since deceased and survived by legal representatives against tenant-petitioner being SCC suit No. 19 of 1984. [Eviction was sought on the ground of default and denial of title through written statement filed by the tenant petitioner in the earlier suit for eviction which had been filed by the landlord against him being SCC suit No. 77 of 1980.
(3.) In the earlier suit (SCC suit No. 77 of 1980) petitioner had filed written statement. In the said written statement it had been pleaded that apart from Kashi Ram the plaintiff his brother Sagar Mai was also owner landlord of the property in dispute and suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The earlier suit was dismissed for eviction on the ground that entire arrears of rent had been deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing. Kashi Ram who was also plaintiff of the earlier suit was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. Against the said judgment and decree Kashi Ram - plaintiff landlord filed SCC revision No. 62 of 1982. The revision was dismissed on 15.9.1983 by A.D.J./Special Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. In respect of question of denial of title it was held in the said judgment by the revisional court that the allegation of the tenant in the written statement that plaintiff alone was not the landlord amounted to denial of title. However, it was further observed that as denial had taken place during the pendency of the suit i.e. in the written statement hence eviction on the ground of denial of title could not be sought for and granted in the same suit. It was further observed that landlord could file a fresh suit for eviction on the basis of the said denial. In view of the said observations, later suit for eviction giving rise to the instant writ petition (SCC suit No. 19 of 1984) was filed. In the second suit giving rise to the instant writ petition tenant pleaded that he had not denied the title of the landlord Kashi Ram. Tenant further pleaded that as landlord refused to accept the rent hence he deposited the same in the earlier concluded suit. Tenant on 28.8.1984 also deposited the entire amount of rent, interest and cost of the suit and claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. In respect of denial of title JSCC, held that the assertion of the tenant in the written statement filed in the earlier suit that Kashi Ram alone was not the landlord did not amount to denial of title. In respect of deposit of rent made by the tenant in the earlier concluded suit trial court held that the said deposit was valid and in view of this tenant was not defaulter when notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent was given by landlord to him i.e. notice dated 1.2.1984. In respect of benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act the trial court held that the deposit was made by the tenant after the first date of hearing hence he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The trial court therefore dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no denial of title and notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was invalide as at the time of notice tenant was not defaulter. The trial court therefore dismissed the suit and permitted the landlord to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. The suit was decided by trial court on 17.5.1985. Against judgment and decree dated 17.5.1985 Kashi Ram landlord filed SCC revision No. 57 of 1985. Vith ADJ, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 7.10.1986 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit for ejectment also hence this writ petition by the tenant.;