- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner-tenant from house No, 328/2, Premganj, Sirpir Bazar, Jhansi in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Jhansi. It was said that the rate of rent for the premises was Rs. 120 per month and the tenant-petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of rent since 1-4-83. Notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 26-7-87 was said to have been served on 28-7-86 by refusal, hence suit upto the date of filing of the plaint and damages @ 20 per day was claimed. The Judge, Small Causes Court dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 15-1-92.
(2.) BEFORE the trial court, the petitioner filed his written statement and pleaded that he is not tenant of the accommodation instead his wife Smt. Janki Devi is the tenant paying rent @ Rs. 30 per month. It is said that she had been paying the rent to the respondent-landlord regularly but no receipt was given. Since the landlord had declined to give receipt for the rent received, the rent of the accommodation was deposited under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Munsif Court. The petitioner's wife Smt. Janki Devi had sent a notice also to the landlord dated 28-4-86 in the reply sent by the landlord to the notice sent by the petitioner's wife Smt. Janki Devi, landlord had not claimed any arrears of rent or stated anything about the termination of the tenancy by affixation of the notice. According to the pleadings of the petitioner, it was specifically denied that neither he had taken the house on rent nor he ever executed any rent deed in favour of the respondent - landlord. The rent deed set up by the landlord was said to be fictitious. In the alleged rent deed, it was pointed out that the tenancy had commenced on 16-1-1981, whereas in the plaint it was said to be a monthly tenancy. The suit was contested on number of other grounds namely, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit was not competent, liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that suit was not competent in view of Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act. After framing of several issues, the trial court recorded evidence of the witnesses of the parties.
(3.) SO far issue about the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant was considered by the trial court, after appreciation of evidence and perusing the documentary evidence, expert evidence, the trial court found as a fact that the alleged rent deed said to be executed by the petitioner was not proved to be a rent deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the land lord, and evidence of a witness in the said rent deed as attesting witness namely, of Bablu Ram was found to be wrong and fictitious. The petitioner had set up his case from the very beginning and had denied the signatures or execution of any rent deed. The landlord had not examined the main witness of the rent deed nor it has been proved to be duly executed by the petitioner. The perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that the trial court after examining the oral and documentary evidence petitioner was held to be not the tenant of the accommodation instead it was found that Smt. Janki Devi was the tenant of the accommodation in question.;