MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition for quashing of the judgment and decree dated 1.05.2000 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Faizabad in SCC Suit No.18 of 1997 and the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Faizabad in SCC Revision No.101 of 2001.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the opposite party no.1, who is the landlord of House No.7/6/206 situate at Mohalla Fatehganj, Ward Lalbagh, City Faizabad, filed a suit for eviction of the original tenant, namely, Sri Kanchumal. The suit was contested by the then tenant, but during the pendency of suit, the parties entered into a compromise and it was agreed that with effect from 1st May, 1997 the rate of rent will be enhanced to Rs.150/ - per month and the tenancy would be a fixed term tenancy for five years which may be extended with the consent of the parties. This compromise was arrived at and was also brought on the record of SCC Suit No.10 of 1979, but while recording the compromise, the learned Judge Small Causes dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 04.05.1987. As per the terms of the agreement, the term of the tenancy ended after five years in the year 1992 and when the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Late Kanchumal failed to vacate the premises in their occupation, the opposite party no.1 filed SCC Suit No.3 of 1993 against the petitioners.? However, the suit was dismissed on the ground of non -joinder of the parties. Feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of SCC Suit, the opposite party no.1 filed SCC Revision No.167 of 1995 which was also dismissed on 08.05.1995. However, in the meantime, on 22.04.1997, the opposite party no.1 filed another suit which was registered as SCC Suit No. 18 of 1997. The suit was filed with the allegation that in the SCC Suit No.10 of 1979 the original tenant Late Kanchumal and the landlord -opposite party no.1 had entered into a compromise and as per the terms of the compromise the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time after a lapse of a period of five years.
(3.) THE petitioners filed their written statement and contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the building under their tenancy was governed by U.P.Act No.13 of 1972, and as such the agreement, if any, filed in SCC Suit No.10 of 1979 was a void document and a decree for eviction could not be passed on the basis of the said document. It was further alleged by them that the agreement was not binding upon him. With regards to the payment of rent, it was stated by the petitioners that when the opposite party no.1 did not receive the rent, the same was sent through money order which was also refused by him. Thereafter having no other alternative the petitioners started depositing the rent in the court of Munsif, Faizabad in Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 1992. According to the petitioners, they have been regularly depositing the rent in the court and as such they did not commit any default in payment of rent. It was also pleaded by the petitioners that when the SCC suit was filed on 22.04.1997, the SCC Revision No.167 of 1995 was pending. Hence, on this score also the SCC suit was not maintainable. It was also stated by them that after the death of Kanchumal, the petitioners had inherited tenancy rights from him and as the alleged compromise was a void document, the tenancy could not have been terminated by efflux of time. Under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, a tenancy could be terminated only by a issuing notice in writing on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. ? ? The learned SCC Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed four points of determination and on the basis of evidence on record recorded a finding that the building was governed by U.P.Act No.13 of 1972. It was further concluded that the agreement executed between the opposite party no.1 and Late Kanchumal was a valid document and was binding upon the petitioners. Since as per the terms of the agreement, the tenancy was for a fixed terms of five years, the tenancy stood terminated automatically after the expiry of five years term and the status of the petitioners became that of statutory tenant, therefore, no notice in writing was required to terminate their tenancy. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the suit of the opposite party no.1 was decreed with cost.;