- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This revision is under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, at instance of the tenant of a shop situate at Main Bazar Qasba Amariya, Pergana Jahanabad, Tehsil and District Pilibhit, as described at the foot of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -.
(2.) THE plaintiff opposite party, hereinafter described as landlord instituted a S. C. C. suit No. 4 of 1998 against the present applicant hereinafter described as tenant on the pleas inter alia that the disputed shop was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and has failed to pay the rent since April, 1995 in spite of the repeated demand, the tenancy has been determined by means of a registered notice dated 31st of March, 1998 which was served by refusal, determining the arrears of rent since April, 1995 and asking the tenant to vacate the disputed shop after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord alongwith the arrears of rent. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 18,850/- is due towards the arrears of rent and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that there has been a change of status of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as a result of change of status the said relationship of landlord and tenant is extinguished since April, 1995. Neither the landlord is entitled to recover any rent after 1st of April, 1995 nor the tenant is liable to pay any rent thereafter. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Court below framed eight points for determination in the suit. Under issue No. 1 it was found that the suit was cognizable by the Judge Small Causes Court as it was for the recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. Under issue No. 2 it was found that admittedly there is no sale deed in favour of the defendant tenant and as such the question of title is not at all involved. Under issue No. 3 it was found that Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act does not bar the suit. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the present suit is not cognizable by the Revenue Courts and it rejected the contention of the tenant that Section 331 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act bars such suit. It was found under issue Nos. 5 and 7 that jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continues to exist and it has not come to an end in view of the document dated 1st of April, 1995, allegedly executed on behalf of the landlord. The service of notice by refusal was found to be sufficient. A presumption of valid service of notice determining the tenancy was drawn. The suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 18, 000/- and also for ejectment of the defendant tenant with damages at the ate of Rs. 500/- per month. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree the present revision has been filed.
(3.) HEARD Shri Tej Pal, Advocate alongwith Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the tenant (applicant ). The learned Counsel for the tenant has assailed findings recorded by the Court below, under the issue No. 4, 5 and 7 only. No attempt was made to challenge the findings recorded by the trial Court on other issues/point for determination. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court on other issues stand confirmed and need no consideration by this Court. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the tenant that the present suit, was not maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court in view of Sections 143 and 164 read with the Section 331 of U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act. Elaborating the argument he submitted that on 1st of April, 1995, Mohd. Shabbir, brother of the landlord, sold away the disputed shop to him through an unregistered document and as such the status of the tenant applicant has been converted as that of owner and therefore, the Court below committed illegality in decreeing the suit for ejectment as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc. In contra, the learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that the aforesaid Sections of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act have no application to the controversy involved in the case in hands. The alleged document dated 1st of April, 1995 is an unregistered document and no reliance can be placed upon it in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Elaborating the argument he submitted that even if there is no declaration as required under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, a tenant of a shop or a building cannot gain any advantage of non declaration. Section 164 of U. P. Z. A. Act deals with transfer by a Bhumidhar to be deemed a sale - "any transfer of any holding or part thereof made by a Bhumidhar by which possession is transferred to the transferee. . . . . . . " It was submitted that as the tenant was already in possession of the disputed shop and there has been no transfer of possession of any holding by landlord, Section 164 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act does not apply to the facts of the present case.;