Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shiv Sagar Singh holding brief of Sri Pankaj Mittal learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent/tenant and service of notice has been held to be sufficient vide order dated 14.2.2006. The petitioner/landlord filed a SCC Suit No. 598/1980 seeking eviction of tenant/respondent on two grounds namely, default of payment of rent and denial of title of the petitioner. The suit was filed with the allegation that respondent No. 2 failed to tender or deposit the arrears or rent inspire of service of notice of demand dated 16.9.1998 and he had denied the title of the petitioner in reply to the notice. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 2 claiming benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as entire arrears of rent was deposited by him.
(2.) THE Trial Court framed following issues: (1) Whether denying the title of the plaintiff on this ground he is liable to be ejectment? (2) Whether defendant is entitled to get benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972? Though the erstwhile landlady Smt. Mohini Devi informed the respondent through registered notice dated 15.7.1980 that shop in dispute had been transferred to the petitioner/landlord on 17.7.1977. The same information was also conveyed by the petitioner/land -lord by another registered notice dated 17.7.1980 and to pay the rent to him. The said notices were not denied by the respondent/tenant in his written statement. The Trial Court further found that in reply to the notice demanding arrears of rent which was duly served upon the tenant/respondent he denied the title of the petitioner/landlord as well as relationship of landlord and tenant. The Trial Court further held that since it was not the case of respondent/tenant that information given to him by the erstwhile landlady, Smt. Mohini Devi was either not genuine or that there was any bona fide doubt in the genuineness of document as such after having received the information the allegation made in reply to the notice amounts to denial of title and relationship of landlord and tenant and thus he was liable to be ejectment under section 20(4)(f) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(3.) IN so far as issue No. 2 is concerned the Trial Court found that in paragraph No. 18 of the writ petition it was stated that whole of the rent has been deposited under section 20(4) along with interest, costs etc. but no details or particulars about the amount and date of deposit has been mentioned and thus the tenant/respondent is not entitled to get benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On the basis of aforesaid finding of two issues the Trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent.;