A.N.DIKSHTIA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 17.5.80 allowing the revision and modifying the decree for the eviction of the defendant-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) from the shop in suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants of a shop No. 219 situate at Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Pargana, Konch, district Jalaun owned by respondent No. 2 Mukundi Lal at the rate of Rs. 13.50 per month (Rs. 12 as rent and Rs. 1.50 as water-tax, till 15.7.72. After the said date (15.7.72) the rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs. 17.50 per month (Rs. 15 as rent and Rs. 2.50 as water-tax). Respondent No. 2 Mukundi Lal, the landlord owner filed a suit (Suit No. 16 of 1976) against the petitioners for their ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, etc. in the Court of Judge Small Causes Konch, Jalaun on the allegations the petitioners had not paid the rent since 30th of June, 1971. Inspite of the services of a notice dated 19.1.76 which was served on the petitioners on 23.1.76, the petitioners being in arrears of rent for not less than four months and failing to pay the same are, thus, liable to eviction within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act (Act XIII of 1972) hereinafter referred to as Act XIII of 1972). It was also alleged that the petitioners were also liable to eviction in view of the fact that they have denied the title of the landlord and as such committed a breach of the provisions as enshrined under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act XIII of 1972. Respondent No. 2 claimed the relief of eviction from the shop in suit and also for recover of Rs. 630 arrears of rent and damages, w.e.f. 15.12.72 to 15.12.76.
(3.) THE petitioners contested the suit on various grounds. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that plaintiff-respondent No. 2 alone had no right to maintain the suit as after the death of Babu Lal plaintiff-respondent No. 2 along with Manan Lal, his son Jagdish Prasad and widow Gaura Devi became the landlord owners of the shop in suit. It was further alleged that even the Nagar Palika, Konch from whom the lease was taken by Babu Lal has not been impleaded in the suit. The petitioners categorically denied the allegation that they are in arrears of rent or have committed any default so as to attract the provisions of Section 20(2)(a) of Act XIII of 1972. The petitioners however, alleged that no amount is due against them as they have already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,346 in the Court. It was further stated by the petitioners that on the expiry of the lease which was granted by Nagar Palika on 31.3.1971 a notice was given by Nagar Palika, Konch, District Jalaun calling upon the petitioners to deposit the rent, w.e.f. 1.4.1971 and also to execute an agreement failing which legal action would be initiated against the petitioners. This notice, apparently was given by Nagar Palika, Konch under assumption that the lease granted in favour of Babu Lal in respect of the suit-shop expired on 31.3.1971. The petitioners in view or the receipt of the said notice from Nagar Palika, Konch, District Jalaun, sent a reply of the notice sent by the Nagar Palika and called upon the respondent No. 2 to intimate as to whom the rent is to be paid. However, as neither Nagar Palika nor respondent No. 2 replied to the notice sent by the petitioners a numbered as O.S. No. 177 of 1974 titled a Chhingu Ram and Param Sukh v. Mukundi Lal, Jagdish Prasad, Municipal Board Konch and Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Konch, was filed by the petitioners seeking the declaration as to which of the defendants entitled to receive the rent, w.e.f. 1.4.1971. This suit (Suit No. 177 of 1974) was decided and it was declared that the respondent No. 2 is the person competent and entitled to receive the rent and the petitioners are tenants of respondent No. 2. The petitioners after the decision of the suit (177 of 1974) sent Rs. 192/- by money order to respondent No. 2 but it was refused by respondent No. 2. The petitioners deposited Rs. 396/- by tender dated 24.12.1974 within the meaning of Section 30(2) of the Act XIII of 1972 and Rs. 950/- on 21.11.1977 the first date of hearing in suit.;