Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Petitioner is tenant of a shop situated in Civil Lines, Opposite Old Jail within the premises of Mohan Hospital, Bulandshahr.
(2.) PLAINTIFF-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2002 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, vide judgment dated 3.9.2002 decreed the suit on the ground of denial of title of the landlord in proceedings under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2002, the petitioner-tenant filed Revision No. 25 of 2002. A Cross Revision No. 26 of 2002 was also filed by the respondent-landlord. Both the revisions were dismissed by the revisional court vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2002 affirming the judgment and decree the trial court in view of the fact that the petitioner denied the title of the respondent-landlord. It is against the aforesaid impugned orders that the petitioner has come up in this writ petition before this Court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner never denied the factum of his tenancy but he denied the exclusive ownership of the respondent-landlord over the disputed shop by way of family partition. He submitted that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 in lump sum before the 'first date of hearing' of the suit, which was more than the amount, i.e., Rs. 14,460 claimed by the respondent-landlord, as such, the petitioner was not liable to be evicted from the disputed shop as he did not commit any default in payment of rent. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is clear denial of title of the respondent-landlord by the petitioner and no rent had been paid rather it was sent to Sri Dhanendra Mohan one of the brothers who was accepting rent from him earlier but he did not accept the same in view of the fact that the disputed shop had come in the share of the respondent-landlord by family petition which was subject-matter of Suit No. 817 of 1999. It is urged that since the petitioner refused to recognize plaintiff-respondent as landlord of the disputed shop and failed to pay rent to the actual landlord, he is liable to be evicted from the disputed shop.;