Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by them against tenant -respondent No. 3 - -Niranjan Prasad before JSCC, Allahabad in the form of SCC suit No. 410 of 1987. According to the plaint allegations property in dispute is in the form of a kothari rent of which is Rs. 25/ - per month, that the building of which kothari in dispute is a part was purchased by the plaintiff from its previous owners through registered sale deed dated 10.8.1982, that the tenant had not paid rent even to the previous owner from 1.8.1976 till the date of sale amounting to Rs. 1,800/ - which was also purchased by the plaintiffs from the previous owner. It was further stated that information regarding purchase of the accommodation in dispute was given to the tenant by the plaintiffs through notices dated 12.12.1985 and 15.9.1987 and the latter notice was personally served which was wrongly replied by the tenant through reply notice dated 13.10.1987. Tenant filed written statement and stated that he was tenant in two rooms, two verandas, kitchen and a Court yard and that he was tenant for 50 years at the rate of Rs. 4/ - per month. It was further stated in para 5 of the written statement that until receipt of notice dated 15.9.1987 defendant was not aware of purchase of the accommodation in dispute by the plaintiffs and that he was under the impression that the previous landlords had exempted him from paying rent hence he was unclear the impression that he was not required to pay rent to any one. Tenant in his oral statement stated that rent was paid till 1960. Written statement was filed on 5.2.1987. In para 14 it was stated that tenant was depositing entire rent at the admitted rate (Rs. 4/ - per month) from December 1983 till February 1988 amounting to Rs. 200/ - and Rs. 239/ - towards interest and cost (total Rs. 439/ -) hence he was not defaulter.
(2.) THE Trial Court found that the rate of rent was Rs. 4/ - per -month as stated by the tenant and not Rs. 25/ - per month as stated by the landlord. Trial Court further found that three years' rent had been claimed in the plaint which came to Rs. 144/ - (at the rate of Rs. 4/ - per month) and tenant had deposited Rs. 200/ - as rent hence he was not liable to eviction (without mentioning section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 probably the Trial Court granted the benefit of the said section to the tenant). The suit was ultimately dismissed on 10.5.1991 by Additional JSCC, Allahabad landlords filed civil revision (ought to be SCC revision) 170 of 191. Vth A.D.J. Allahabad affirmed each and every finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the revision on 17.7.1997 hence this writ petition by the landlord. As far as finding regarding rate of rent being Rs. 4/ - per month is concerned, it is purely a finding of fact which cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
(3.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Sheikh Noor v. S.G.J. Ibrahim : 2003 (52) ALR 686 : AIR 2003 SC 4163 (para 18) : 2003 (9) AIC 32 (SC) that: - - In view of the cases referred to above, in our opinion, the correct position of law is that a transferee is not entitled to recover the arrears as rent for the property on transfer unless the right to recover the arrears is also transferred. If right to recover the arrears is assigned, then the transferee/landlord, can recover those arrears as rent and if not paid maintain a petition for eviction under rent laws for those arrears as well. Since in this case we have found that there was an assignment of right to recover the arrears in favour of the respondent transferee he was entitled to recover the same as arrears of rent. If that period is taken into consideration then the tenant/appellants were certainly in arrears of rent for more than six months and became liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of default on their part in payment of rent for more than six months on the date of filing the suit.;