Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been heard and disposed of in open court for reasons to be recorded later. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows.
(2.) HEARD Sri S. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.2.2005, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raebareilly, in S. C. C. Civil Revision No. 607 of 2004, Daya Shankar Upadhyaya v. Naresh Chandra and others, preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2004 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Raebareilly decreeing the suit of landlord-respondents 1 to 3 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner. In the present case, both the courts below, i.e., learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Raebareilly and the revisional court, i.e., IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raebareilly have recorded concurrent findings of facts, forming the same opinion that the petitioner-tenant was liable for ejectment from the property, accommodation in dispute, situate in town Jais in District Raebareilly, as he had defaulted in making payment of rent to the landlords for the rented premises since 1.5.1985 to 31.3.1987 (rent for 23 months). It emerges from record that a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Raebareilly. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondents 1 to 3 were the landlords of premises in question, situate in town Jais, which is a municipality of District Raebareilly. An agreement/rent note was executed between the landlords Naresh Chandra and others and Sri Daya Shankar Upadhyaya, petitioner on 1.4.1985 for the purposes of renting out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month. The tenancy of petitioner Sri Daya Shankar Upadhyaya began from 1st day of each month and expired on last day of the month according to English calendar. The tenant had defaulted in making payment of rent and he fell in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,900 (for 23 months) on 31.3.1987. A legal notice dated 17.4.1987 was sent to the tenant-petitioner through registered post on 18.4.1987 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy. The tenant refused to accept the notice on 23.4.1987, hence a suit was filed by the landlords, which was decreed by the learned Small Causes Court on 13.8.2004. On the basis of pleadings of parties, three issues were framed by the said court, i.e., whether the plaintiff-landlords were entitled for Rs. 6,900 as arrears of rent from the tenant ; whether the tenant was liable to be evicted from the premises in question ; and to what relief, if any, were the plaintiff-landlords entitled? The learned court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant had defaulted in making payment of rent despite a written agreement/rent note executed by him and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It was also proved before the Court on the basis of documentary evidence that the plaintiffs Naresh Chandra, Ramesh Chandra and Umesh Chandra, sons of late Chaudhary Gopi Nath, were landlords of the premises which was rented out to the petitioner on 1.4.1985 after executing an agreement/rent note. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said judgment and decree of the trial court. After hearing the parties and going through the material on record, the revisional court has dismissed the revision vide its judgment and order dated 26.2.2005, confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned court below. The judgment and orders of both the learned courts below have been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) SRI S. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not a tenant, he was in fact landlord of the premises in question, which was his ancestral house. The premises in dispute was not owned by SRI Naresh Chandra, etc. who were claiming themselves to be the Zamindars of Qasba Jais, Raebareilly. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on two documents, one-List of House Tax Assessees maintained by the Municipal Board Jais, Raebareilly in respect of House No. 234 and the other, a receipt relating to payment of House Tax by the petitioner Daya Shankar Upadhyaya. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as D. W. 2 and one more witness Siyaram as D. W. 2. According to him, both the courts below have erred in holding that the house in dispute was not owned by the petitioner. He has further submitted that in fact there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. No issue was framed regarding the title or ownership of the premises in question. In the written statement and other pleadings, the petitioner had denied the title of landlord. Since intricate question of title was involved in this case, the court below ought to have returned the plaint or decided this question first before proceeding further. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in Pratap Singh v. IXth A.D.J., Fatehpur and others, 2000 (2) ARC 41 : 2000 (3) AWC 1995 and Mahendra Pal Singh and others v. District Judge, Jhansi and another, 2004 (1) ARC 697 : 2004 (5) AWC 4090, wherein it has been held that the disputed question of title should have been dealt with by the appropriate civil court. SRI Pathak has further submitted that since the petitioner himself was the landlord of the premises, no question had arisen to make payment of any rent to the alleged landlord. As far as the agreement/rent note, paper No. 6 Ga is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was never proved according to law. According to him, the alleged agreement /rent note is an unregistered document, hence it is not binding on the parties. However, Sri S. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the said agreement/rent note dated 1.4.1985 bears his signatures. His submission is that this document being an unregistered document was inadmissible in evidence. The provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable in the present case. The alleged letting was without a formal allotment and as such the landlord cannot claim any relief against the petitioner. The judgment and order passed by the ?earned courts below are based on conjectures and surmises. The petitioner is an illiterate and uneducated person ; he cannot read or write. However, he is able only to write his name. Sri Pathak has reiterated all the arguments, which were advanced before the courts below, and the pleadings put forth before the Judge, Small Cause Court, memo of revision etc.;