- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Sukhoo the landlord filed suit for eviction (SCC suit No. 3 of 1985) as well as release ap plication under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Rent case No. 25 of 1987 ). In both the cases Sheo Moorat Pandey (S. M. Pandey) and Shyam Narain Pandey (S. N. Pandey) were impleaded as defendants/opposite par ties No. 1 and 2. Suit for eviction was decreed on 17-7-1989 by JSCC/. X A. D. J. , Varanasi giving rise to the above revision by Shyam Narain Pandey. Release application was rejected giving rise to the above writ petition by landlord Sukhoo. During pendency of cases Shyam Narain Pandey had died and was substituted by his legal repre sentatives. Building in dispute contain ing one room, latrine and courtyard on the ground floor and one room on the first floor was admittedly allotted to Sheo Moorat Pandey. Another room en the first floor was also later on taken on rent by the tenant from the previous land- lord/owner. Sukhoo purchase the building in dispute on 1-9-1981 (sale-deed dated 1 -9-1981 was registered on 21 -9-1981 ). According to Sukhoo the al lotment was made in 1963 in favour of Sheo Moorat Pandey on the rent of Rs. 78 per month, however, after giving another room to Sheo Moorat Pandey by the previous owner rent was en hanced to Rs. 100 per month and that Rs. 10 were also payable by Sheo Moorat Pandey as water tax hence total liability was of Rs. 110 per month. Suk hoo in the plaint of the suit also pleaded that Sheo Moorat Pandey paid rent for the months of September, October and November, 1981, however, thereafter no rent was paid. It was also pleaded in the plaint that S. M. Pandey had sub-let the accommodation in dispute to S. N. Pan dey. Suit was filed after serving notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent upon Sheo Moorat Pandey.
(2.) S. M. Pandey allottee filed written statement completely admitting the case of the landlord. He admitted that he had paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per month of the plaintiff till Novem ber, 1981 and thereafter he had sub-let the accommodation in dispute to S. N. Pandey. S. N. Pandey, applicant in the revision, pleaded that he was maternal uncle of S. M. Pandey and he himself got the house in dispute allotted in the name of his nephew (Bhanja) S. M. Pan dey and that since the start of tenancy he was residing with S. M. Pandey (Bhanja ). S. N. Pandey also pleaded that he had brought up S. M. Pandey his Bhanja and kept him in the house in dis pute. He also pleaded that rate of rent was only Rs. 7. 50 per month and after taking another room on rent, rent was enhanced to Rs. 10 per month, which was paid to the previous landlord but without any receipt. It was also pleaded that the previous landlord had also in itiated eviction proceedings, which failed. He further pleaded that in the year 1969 his relations with his Bhanja S. M. Pandey became strained and S. M. Pandey left the house in dispute and since then he alone was residing there in and S. M. Pandey was having no con cern since then with the house in dis pute. He also pleaded in the alternative that in case it was not found that since start of tenancy he was the actual tenant then his tenancy stood regularized under Section 14 of the Act as since 1969 he was residing in the house in dispute and paying rent to the previous landlord @ Rs. 10 per month. He also pleaded that he sent reply to the notice of the landlord, which was refused by the landlord. He also sought benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by depositing some amount in the suit. Court below/jscc held that al lotment was in favour of S. M. Pandey who admitted that he had paid rent until November, 1981 and had obtained receipts. The said receipts were filled before the Court below. S. M. Pandey also admitted that with effect from 2-12-1981 he had sub-let the house in dis pute to S. N. Pandey. Trial Court also ob served that S. N. Pandey did not take up the case that he was the sub- tenant and that he had actually claimed inde pendent tenancy on the basis of long possession. Trial Court also observed that allotment in favour of S. M. Pandey had never been cancelled and tirnation of vacancy was given to H. C. and E. O. The version of S. N. Pandey that he himself had got the house in dis pute allotted in the name of S. M. Pan dey was thoroughly disbelieved by the Court below. S. N. Pandey pleaded that he hac1 brought up his nephew S. M. Pandey; if it was so then there was ab solutely no reason for getting the house in dispute allotted in the name of his Bhanja S. M. Pandey.
(3.) TRIAL Court also found that it was not proved that S. N. Pandey had paid rent to the previous owner or to the plaintiff. The Court below therefore con cluded that S. N. Pandey was sub tenant. In my opinion the finding is quite correct. S. N. Pandey is maternal uncle of allottee tenant S. M. Pandey hence he was fully authorized to reside alongwith S. M. Pandey in the house in dispute however he is not entitled to reside in the house in dispute independently. A relation of a tenant even though not fall ing within the definition of family mem ber may very well reside alongwith tenant however he cannot reside inde pendently. It is admitted to all the parties that at least since 1981 the allottee tenant S. M. Pandey has completely removed his possession. In view of this the finding of the Court below that S. N. Pandey was sub-tenant/unauthorized occupant was quite correct. In this regard reference may be made to the authority of Supreme Court in Ganesh Trivedi v. Sunder Devi, 2002 (47) ALR 276 (SC ). Even if the admission of S. M. Pandey is ignored, there was sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the finding of the Court below that S. N. Pan dey was sub- tenant/unauthorized oc cupant. The Court below also recorded independent finding in that regard.;