S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 3 Jarifuddin (Zarifuddin) filed S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 1981 against petitioner pleading therein that plaintiff was owner-landlord of the accommodation in dispute in which defendant was tenant on his behalf and that defendant had not paid rent in spite of notice of demand through which his tenancy was also terminated, hence defendant was liable to eviction. It was further stated that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Plaintiff had also pleaded that the shop was constructed in the year 1980. Additional Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge IInd, Muzaffarnagar held that the shop was constructed in the year 1980.
(2.) Defendant had pleaded that his father Bhagwat Krishna had taken the land beneath the shop in dispute on rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month from its previous owner Hashmat Ali and had constructed Kachcha shop upon the said land which was later on converted into a Pucca shop by the sons of Bhagwat Krishna, including the defendant and defendant was doing business of general merchandise for about 4 years from the shop in dispute and that he was only Manager of the business as three of his brothers were also owners thereof. In this manner defendant out rightly denied the ownership of the plaintiff.
(3.) Trial Court found the version of the landlord to be correct and thoroughly disbelieved the stand taken by the tenant on the following grounds : (i) Defendant stated that Patta had been executed in favour of his father and he had filed the said Patta, however in fact no Patta was filed by the defendant. (ii) Defendant could not say whether the alleged Patta of the land beneath the shop in favour of his father was registered or unregistered. (iii) Defendant admitted that he had filed Original Suit No. 283 of 1981 against the plaintiff before Munsif, Muzaffar Nagar, copy of plaint of the said suit was filed in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition. In the said plaint defendant had admitted that he was tenant of the shop in dispute @ Rs. 80/- per month for about 10 months on behalf of the plaintiff, who was defendant in the said suit. Defendant simply stated that allegations in his suit (Original Suit No. 283 of 1981) were wrong. The trial Court rightly dismissed the said suggestion. In the said suit defendant, who was plaintiff therein, never stated at any point of time that the allegations in the plaint were wrong. (iv) To the notice which the plaintiff had given to the defendant before filing the suit reply had been given by the defendant through his Advocate, which was filed and marked as Ex. 7. In the said reply notice defendant admitted that he was tenant of the plaintiff @ Rs. 80/- per month and that he had paid the rent till June, 1981. (v) Plaintiff had also filed two sale-deeds numbered as 37 Ga/1 and 37 Ga/2 through which he purchased the land over which shop in dispute was constructed. He had also filed copy of the sanctioned map (paper No. 40 Ka). In respect of construction of the shops including the shop in dispute.;