S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THESE four writ petitions have been filed by different tenants. The landlord of all the four accommodations is the same i.e. Mehboob Ali Khan -respondent No. 3 in all the writ petitions. Petitioners in all the four writ petitions have died and substitution applications have been filed. In some cases original substitution applications were not on record hence duplicate copies thereof were filed. The said duplicate copies are treated to be original. Substitution applications in all the four writ petitions are Allowed after condoning the delay, if any, in filing the same. Landlord Mehboob Ali Khan filed four suits for eviction against the petitioners on the ground of default. Relief of recovery of arrears of rent was also sought. The numbers of the suits were S.C.C. Suit Nos. 28, 26, 25 and 29 all of 1981 respectively, the suits were instituted before J.S.C.C./Munsif, Bijnore. All the suits were decreed on 17.8.1982 by separate but similar judgments. All the petitioners filed revisions being Civil Revision Nos. 267, 264, 265 and 266 all of 1982. All the revisions were dismissed by 1st A.D.J. on 28.10.1985 by separate but similar orders hence these writ petitions. Rates of rent payable by the petitioners are Rs. 10/ -, Rs. 8/ -, Rs. 8/ - and Rs. 11/ - per month respectively. In the first writ petition two shops were let out and in one of the shops tenant -petitioner was having a Bhar. In the other three petitions houses were let out and in the said houses petitioners had built bhars. All the four petitioners are carrying on business of bhars. (An old fashioned device for roasting grows etc.) Petitioners in the second, third and fourth writ petitions are also using part of the tenanted properties for residence.
(2.) IN all the plaints Mehboob Ali Khan -plaintiff pleaded that the property belonged to Waqf Alal Aulad which was registered with the Waqf Board and its previous mutawalli was Abdul Hafiz Khan however through judgment and decree dated 8.8.1973 passed in O.S. No. 238 of 1970 he was removed from the mutwalliship and Mehboob Ali Khan plaintiff was appointed, as mutawalli. There is no allegation of the plaintiff that till October, 1978 any information of decree of 1973 was given to the tenant in writing. Plaintiff only alleged that he orally intimated the tenants about the same. This theory of oral intimation has not been accepted by the Courts below. In any case no tenant is supposed to switch over his landlord on mere oral information by alleged subsequent landlord. Plaintiff alleged that regarding change of mutwalliship through decree dated. 8.8.1973 he intimated the defendants through notice dated 26.10.1979. Thereafter notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was given on 17.2.1982. Tenants pleaded that until receipt of notice dated 26.10.1979 they were not aware of judgment and decree dated 8.8.1973 through which previous mutawalli had been removed and plaintiff Mehboob Ali had been appointed as mutawalli. Tenant also pleaded that in ignorance of the said fact hey had paid rent to previous mutawalli Abdul Hafiz Khan. They also filed receipts issued by him. The Courts below held that receipts were not proved. Tenants filed receipts and stated in their oral testimony that the same had been issued by the previous mutawalli They further stated that they had paid rent to the previous mutawalli. There was no evidence in rebuttal. Plaintiff's silence for six years was rather unusual After receipt of notice dated 26.10.1979 rent was deposited by the tenant under section 30 and thereafter in the suit to claim the benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Both the Courts below held that after receiving the notice dated 26.10.1979 tenants became liable to pay rent to plaintiff Mehboob Ali with effect from 8.8.1973, the date on which the decree declaring the plaintiff Mehboob Ali to be the mutawalli was passed. In this regard the Courts below committed a patent error of law. They did not take into consideration section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. The proviso to the said section is as follows: Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over and gain to the transferee. In the absence of written notice tenants could not have any reason to believe that Mehboob Ali plaintiff had become their landlord.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in Ram Rati v. Srinivas : AIR 1995 SC 2321 has held in para -4 that: In case someone acquires title to the tenanted property through decree of Court then simple notice by that person without mentioning therein the fact of decision of the suit does not make it obligatory upon the tenant to pay rent to him.;