Sudhir Narain - (1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and decree dated 13.4.1994 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the order dated 15.2.1996 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid judgment.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 1989 for recovery of arrears, of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that he was a tenant of the accommodation at premises No. 24, Pratappura, Nagra, Jhansi at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. He was in arrears of rent since 1.3.1984. THE plaintiff sent a notice dated 1.3.1989 to the petitioner which was served on him by refusal on 20.3.1989. He failed to pay arrears of rent and thereby committed default and was liable for eviction. The petitioner contested the suit and denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. It was stated that his wife was tenant of the premises in question and Bihari Lal was its landlord. His wife, Smt. Kamla Devi, had paid rent to Bihari Lal for the period upto October 1989. He asked Smt. Kamla Devi to enhance the rent but as she did not accept, Bihari Lal got the present suit filed through his nephew, Brij Gopal, the plaintiff. Smt. Kamla Devi had sent rent by money order to Bihari Lal for the period 1988 to February 1989 but he refused to accept the same. She deposited the amount under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on 15.12.90. The trial court dismissed the suit on 21.5.1992 on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 filed revision against the said judgment. The revisional court allowed the revision on 1.11.1993 and remanded the case to the Judge Small Causes Court. After remand, on behalf of the petitioner his wife Smt. Kamla Devi was examined and on behalf of respondent No. 3 Bihari Lal was examined. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 13.4.1994 on the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent No. 3, the petitioner was served with a notice and he failed to pay the rent. The rate of rent was Rs. 40 per month. The petitioner filed revision against the said judgment and the revision has been dismissed on 15.2.1996. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri V. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the District Judge remanded the case for fresh decision in the light of the evidence already adduced and after remand the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to examine Bihari Lal, his uncle, in the case and Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the petitioner and this has vitiated the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court. The controversy in the suit was whether the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Kamla Devi, was the tenant of the premises in question and its landlord was Bihari Lal or the petitioner was a tenant and respondent No. 3 is landlord of the disputed premises. There was no documentary evidence to prove relationship of landlord and tenant. Before the Judge Small Causes Court, respondent No. 3 had appeared as P.W. 1 and the petitioner as D.W. 1. The Judge Small Causes Court in his order dated 21.5.1992 had relied on the factor that Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the petitioner, had made deposit of the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in favour of Bihari Lal on 15.12.1990 during the pendency of the suit which indicates that Bihari Lal was landlord and Smt. Kamla Devi was tenant. Respondent No. 3 had filed affidavit of Bihari Lal (Paper No. 30C) on 9.4.1992 before the Judge Small Causes Court. In the said affidavit, Bihari Lal had stated that Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the petitioner, was not his tenant. He had no concern with the property and respondent No. 3 is its owner.;