Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's petition. It arises out of SCC Suit No. 15 of 1987 filed by the petitioner against Sri Girraj @ Gir Prasad who died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind him the Respondents No. 2 to 6, for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 360/ - at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per month and mesne profits on the allegation that he is the landlord of the premises No. 144/2, Mallapura, Mathura, Girraj @ Gir Prasad was the tenant thereof on monthly rent of Rs. 10/ - and has not paid the arrears of rent for more than three years inspite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. The said suit was contested by the defendant Girraj Prasad on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was pleaded that he paid the rent earlier to the brother of the petitioner, namely, Deoki Nandan and thereafter to the plaintiff for some time under assumption that they are the Manager and looking after the disputed premises on behalf of Thakur Kishan Deo Ji Maharaj. According to the defendant, the property in question belongs to Thakur Kishan Deo Ji Maharaj. In the year 1975, when the defendant came to know that the affairs of Thakur Kishan Deo Ji Maharaj is being managed by Sri Krishna Janmsthan Purnodhar Samiti, therefore, he stopped paying rent to the plaintiff. Plea that the suit is not maintainable before the Court of Small Causes, as serious question of title is involved, was also raised.
(2.) THE trial court by its judgment and decree dated 17 -9 -1970 decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment on the findings that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the disputed premises and that the defendant has failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff. The said decree has been set aside in Revision No. 232 of 1997 filed by the defendant -tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the impugned judgment and order dated 28 -5 -1998. An application to review the said order and judgment dated 28 -5 -1998 was filed before the court below which has been dismissed by the order dated 16 -7 -1998. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed. The respondent -tenant had filed caveat through Sri Hirendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate in the above writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondent, after accepting the notice, failed to appear at the subsequent stages of the writ petition and failed to file counter affidavit inspite of the time granted by the Court. The writ petition was heard on 19 -2 -2007 in absence of the counsel for the respondent, in the revised list.
(3.) THE principal ground on which the re visional court reversed the decree of the trial court is that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the defendant -respondent was not obliged to pay the rent to the plaintiff. The question thus for consideration in the writ petition is - as to whether the finding recorded by the revisional court on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is sustainable or not.;