Sudhir Narain - (1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment dated 1.8.1992, passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order dated 17.5.1993, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid judgment.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner is tenant of shop No. 145. Tareem Bahadurganj, district Shahjahanpur. This shop was originally owned by Sri Vasalat Ali Khan and let out to the petitioners on monthly rent of Rs. 25. Vasalat Ali Khan executed a sale deed in respect of the shop in question on 1.8.1981 in favour of respondent No. 3. The version of the petitioner is that he sent rent to Vasalat Ali Khan by money order but he refused to accept the rent. He deposited the rent in the Court of Munsif under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 27.3.1982, he filed an application for adding the name of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he had come to know that the property has been sold in his favour. The application was allowed by the court concerned on 17.1.1983. The petitioner thereafter continued to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 sent a notice on 27.11.1986 to the petitioner stating that he had purchased the disputed property vide registered sale deed dated 1.8.1981 and he is entitled to the rent for the period after 1st August, 1981. The petitioner sent a reply to respondent No. 3 through his counsel on 8.12.1986 stating that he had to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act as Vasalat Ali Khan had refused to accept the rent. He has been depositing the rent under the orders of the Court dated 11.1.1983. He can withdraw the amount on furnishing proof of his ownership. Respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 16 of 1987 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on 31.7.1987 on the allegation that the petitioner failed to pay arrears of rent due against him for the period since 1.8.1981 in spite of the service on the respondents and thereby committed default and was liable for ejectment. The petitioner filed written statement and stated that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. He was never informed by the previous landlord about the execution of the sale deed. Respondent No. 3 further filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating that as the petitioner had denied his right and title in the property, he is liable for eviction on the ground of denial of title itself. The petitioner filed additional written statement.
(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment on 11.8.1992 on the finding that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff inspite of the service on notice upon him and further he had denied the title of the plaintiff. THE petitioner filed revision against the said order and the revision has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 17.5.1993. THEse orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.;