Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and perused the record.
(2.) That is a tenant's writ petition, arising out of the eviction proceedings initiated against him by the landlord, Sri Rajesh Kumar Goyel son of Sri Chhedi Lal Goel, on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1.3.2002 to 31.7.2002 and the house tax from 1.4.2001 to 31.7.2002. A suit No. 10 of 2002, was filed on 30.9.2002 by the landlord for payment of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the shop situated in Indira Nagar, Risia Bazar, Bahraich. Since the shop in dispute was rented out in April, 1995, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable in the present case. The landlord filed the suit under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes Court on 21.11.2005 and the petitioner-tenant was directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent etc. within one month. Aggrieved thereby a Revision No. 16 of 2005, was preferred by the tenant before the Additional District Judge, Bahraich/Special Judge, E.C. Act, which was also dismissed on 4.2.2006.
(3.) Sri A.R. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has assailed the above orders dated 4.2.2006 and 21.11.2005 on the ground that Sri Rajesh Kumar Goel son of Sri Chhedi Lal Goel was not the landlord and thus he had no right to file the suit and seek eviction of the tenant-petitioner. As the shop in question was rented out to the petitioner-tenant by Sri Chhedi Lal Goel, (father of Rajesh Kumar Goel), both the Courts below have wrongly treated Sri Rajesh Kumar Goel as landlord of the shop. The correspondence between Sri Chhedi Lal and Raj Kamal Ojha, petitioner-tenant which proves that Sri Chhedi Lal was landlord, was misread and construed. The petitioner-tenant throughout denied the claim of Rajesh Kumar Goel as landlord of the shop in dispute. The Revisional Court has misconstrued and misread the judgments cited before it. The petitioner-tenant has been evicted at the instance of a person who is not the landlord and Sri Chhedi Lal Goel, the real landlord did not give a notice to the petitioner, demanding the rent or any intimation regarding change of ownership of the shop. The said suit was barred by Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The trial Court ought to have written the plaint for presentation before the proper Court for settlement of the dispute. The question of landlord-ship and title etc. was involved in the suit in question. The notice served on the petitioner was defective.;