- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. The above-mentioned writ petitions relate to the same matter in Issue and Involve common questions of law and facts, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.
(2.) HEARD Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri J. P. Mathur and other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenants and Sri B. K. Saxena, advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 10, landlords. Through these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, passed on 1-4-1991 and the judgment and order dated 26-11-1991. passed by the revisional Court, i. e. . IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, confirming the Judgment and order of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court. The learned Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff- landlords for ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the premises bearing No. 493/72 situate at Mausamganj (Daliganj area) in the city of Lucknow. It emerges from record that the petitioners were tenants, occupying shops/kotharis in the above- mentioned building No. 493/72, Mausamganj, Lucknow. Earlier, the said building, shops, ahata etc. were owned by one Sri Anshumali Sood. Later on. the premises rented out to the petitioners was purchased by Smt. Rani Agrawal and others (opposite parties 3 to 10 in these petitions) on 6-5-1987. The petitioners, who have filed these petitions, were paying monthly rent of Rs. 50 to Sri Anshumall Sood. They should have paid rent to opposite parties 3 to 10 as the ownership of the building in question was transferred to them by Sri Anshumali Sood on 6-5-1987. As was pleaded by the present landlords, the petitioner-tenants stopped paying rent after the property was transferred to the new owners. The title of the property, building, shops, ahata etc. was denied by them. Despite service of the legal valid notices, the tenants did not pay the rent to the present landlords and they fell in arrears of rent.
(3.) IT has been brought on record that two notices were sent by the landlords to the tenants; one in June, 1988 and the other a composite notice of demand of rent and ejectment dated 17-8-1988. which was treated to be served on 22-8-1988 by way of refusal. (In some of the petitions, dates of notices differ ). On non- compliance of the terms of notices, suits for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment etc. were filed against the petitioner- tenants in October, 1988. The written statements were filed by the tenants denying the title of the landlords (vide para 4 of the written statement ). IT was admitted in the written statement that the tenants were paying Rs. 50 to the previous landlord Anshumall Sood and the premises was assessed for the said amount in the records of Nagar Mahapallka, Lucknow. However, after filing of the suits, the rent was deposited in Court. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, framed the following Issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties for their disposal and determination: (1) Whether the notice was served on the defendant and if it is a valid notice? (2) Whether the defendant has sublet his tenanted portion to any one without the consent of the plaintiffs? (3) Whether the defendant had illegally denied the title of the plaintiffs? Effect? (4) Whether the defendant has committed any default in paying the rent and effect of deposition under Section 20 (4) of the Act?;