R.K.Mahajan - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 25.5.1990 passed by Sri R. P. Shukla, Xllth Additional District Judge. Kanpur Nagar allowing plaintiff's application under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Suit No. 83 of 1988 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. It has been prayed that the order dated 25.5.1990 by the learned Judge may be set aside.
(2.) THE brief facts, which have given rise to this revision, are these : It appears that the property in dispute was owned by two brothers, namely, V. L.Verma and S. L. Verma and rent was payable to both persons. It further appears that S. L.Verma died and the rent is alleged to have been paid to S. L. Verma's heirs. THE rent was due from 1.4.1986 to 19.9.1986. THEre is also a notice given by Sri S. L. Verma on 11.3.1988 to Gyan Prakash regarding the payment of arrears of rent, as well as also terminating the tenancy. THEre is another notice given by Sri V. L. Verma to the tenant regarding handing over vacant possession of the shop to the landlord within stipulated time as mentioned in the notice and also to pay the arrears of rent. In this notice, Sri S. L. Verma was described as co-owner of the house in dispute. The short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the payment of arrears of rent to the heirs of S. L. Verma is a valid payment. Sri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the court below was not justified in passing the decree of eviction. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the house in dispute was divided by virtue of Will into different portions. He has submitted that the payment after execution of Will in 1986 (Annexure CA-4) to the heirs of S. L. Verma is not valid. I decline to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and incline to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant for the following reasons :- A payment to one of the landlords is a payment to all landlords of the disputed premises. The remedy between the co-landlords is by way of filing a recovery suit against another landlord in case of refusal of payment of his share and the tenant cannot be dragged into this controversy when he had made the payment to one of the landlords in good faith. The definition of landlord has been mentioned in Section 3 (j) of the Act which is quoted below:- "(j) "landlord", in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person." If a literary interpretation is given, the rent can be paid to any of the landlords and the payment to the heirs of one landlord in a bona fide manner discharged the liability of the tenant. The tenant is not supposed to know the dispute of the Will between the parties unless proper attornment of the tenancy has taken place. The Small Causes Court is not to indulge into deciding the question of title and he must take liberal view while interpreting the clauses of the Act regarding the dispute of rent. Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 deals with the deposit of rent in court in certain circumstances and the legislation has taken care of Section 30 (2) of the aforesaid Act which lays down that where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may, until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building. The rent had been deposited by the tenant in the court of Munsif. The tenant had performed the duty of depositing the rent. The court below should not have struck off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. The finding on this aspect is erroneous and is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited in Ratan Bhushan Shukla v. Additional District Judge, Bahraich and others, 1989 (2) ARC 54, wherein it was observed that the power of striking off defence is not to be exercised mechanically and that the mandate contained in Rule 5, Order XV, will necessarily not result in striking out defence, even if no explanation is furnished the Court cannot strike out the defence. The another ruling cited by the learned counsel is in the case of Hub Lal v. The District Judge, Mirzapur and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17197 of 1984 decided on April 2, 1985 by Hon'ble V. K. Khanna, J. wherein it was observed that where defendant denies that plaintiff is his landlord and does not admit his liability to pay rent to plaintiff, in such a case, order striking off defence, if passed cannot be sustained.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is a valid payment to the heirs of S. L. Verma and this payment was made after entertaining the reasonable belief that they are co-owners/landlords and as such the impugned order in this revision would not be liable to be sustained and is set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.;