Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is landlord of House No. 42, Darzi Chowk, Bareilly of which the respondent No. 3 is a tenant of a part thereof, on a monthly rent of Rs. 6.25 paise, has sought for quashing of the impugned orders dated 3.11.1995 and 4.8.1994, dismissing the J.S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 1986, for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment. Smt. Munni Bibi, the mother of the petitioner was the owner of the said house No. 42, Darzi Chowk, Bareilly. It was an ancestral property and Smt. Munni Bibi got it through succession. On 6.9.1984 a oral partition took place in the family. In that partition, a portion of the said house No. 42, which is tenanted and in occupation of the respondent No. 3, fell in the share of the petitioner. A registered notice dated 5.10.1984, informing about the said partition and the fact that Smt. Munni Bibi ceases to be the owner and landlady of the said portion, was sent by Smt. Munni Bibi to the respondent No. 3, the tenant. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition.
(2.) A S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 1986 was instituted by the present petitioner on the allegations that the tenant has failed to pay the rent inspite of notice of demand and thus, his tenancy has been determined and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that he is the tenant of Smt. Munni Bibi and the plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, has no right to institute the suit. It was also stated that since a disputed question of title is involved, therefore, the plaint should be returned for presentation before the proper Court under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 4.8.1994, dismissed the suit on the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It proceeded to decide the suit on the footing that the question of ownership was not required to be determined in the suit, but the question as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was, according to it, involved in the present suit. The said decree has been confirmed in Revision No. 23 of 1994, by the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1995.
(3.) HEARD Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3. The service of notice of the writ petition has been held sufficient in view of the office report that the registered notice sent has not been returned nor A.D. has been received back after service.;