Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been heard and disposed of in the open Court today for reasons to be recorded later on. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows :
(2.) HEARD Sri R. K. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri D. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord. Under challenge are two judgments and orders ; one passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow dated 16.9.2003 and the other dated 3.3.2004, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow, affirming the judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and ordering for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and had ordered for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted accommodation and issued directions to him for making payment of arrears of rent as well as the current rent to the landlord.
(3.) IT emerges from record that the petitioner-tenant, Chandra Shekhar Singh was inducted as tenant by the father of the opposite party-landlord sometime in the year 1981 in House, Bagh No. 2, near Gagan Palace at Kanpur Road, Lucknow. As per the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, he was required to pay Rs. 350 per month as rent including the electricity and water charges. A Suit No. 246 of 1999, Kulwant Singh v. Chandra Shekhar Singh, was filed by the landlord-opposite party before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow in the year 1999, seeking arrears of rent for the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.7.1999 at the rate of Rs. 350 per month. The total amount of arrears of rent was Rs. 5,600 payable to the landlord by the tenant. Before filing the suit, a legal notice was also sent by the landlord to the petitioner-tenant through his counsel on 2.8.1999 but the tenant did not respond to the same and failed to vacate the rented premises. The tenant had contested the suit by filing his written-statements. It was indicated in the written statements that Rs. 350 per month was being paid by the tenant to the landlord including the electricity and water charges. Sri Kulwant Singh's father, erstwhile landlord had assured that the tenant may live in the house till he constructs his own house in future and there shall be no enhancement in the rent. It is relevant to mention here that it has been admitted by both the parties that there was no written agreement or contract executed between the parties nor the rented house was allotted by the Rent Control Officer, Lucknow. The house in dispute does not come under the purview of the relevant rent laws, i.e., U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The tenant had further indicated in the written statements that earlier to this, an attempt was made by the landlord for forcibly evicting the tenant but on the indulgence of an appropriate civil court, the tenant was safe from eviction by virtue of an injunction order granted in his favour in July, 1998. The petitioner-tenant has been regularly paying the rent.;