- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be a landlord of the accommodation in dispute which is in possession of Raj Narain Sharma -respondent No. 3. The landlord appears to have given a notice of demand and demanded for arrears of rent w. e. f. 1-1-1990 to 30-6-1990 and ejectment terminating the tenancy of the respondent tenant from the shop in dispute, which was served on the respondent No. 3, by refusal. The plaintiff petitioner thereafter filed a Suit No. 9 of 1990 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Firozabad. The case of the petitioner before the Court is that the suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. The rent of the shop in dispute was agreed between the parties and increased to Rs. 100/- per month. But after 1989, the tenant failed to pay the rent and sent the rent by money order, which was not accepted by the landlord. As such, the deficient amount of Rs. 600/- for the period from 1- 1- 1990 to 30-6-1990 is due against the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph No. 1 of the copy of plaint appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that the petitioner had claimed to be the landlord of the shop in dispute, which is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITED]... He submitted that the tenant denied the title in paragraph-1 of his written statement as under : "the defendant is a tenant/occupant of the property detailed at the foot of the written statement, on a monthly rental of Rs. 80/- (inclusive of taxes etc. ). Contrary allegations are absolutely wrong and are incorrect. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that how he has become owner/landlord of the property in dispute. Kindly see additional pleas. "
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that once the title of the landlord is denied by the tenant, he no longer remains entitled to possess the accommodation in dispute. He further submits that the tenant claims to have deposited the entire arrears of rent with the Courts below. However, the Courts below have entirely failed to consider the fact that the due amount has not been paid and have wrongly come to the conclusion that the tenant is entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1992, without recording that whether the tenant had deposited the whole amount in the Courts below on the first date of hearing or not. Sri A. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of apex Court rendered in Ghoorey Lal v. Sheo Murti Gupta & Anr. , Allahabad Rent Cases, 1995 (2) and submits that the amount deposited under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1992, has to be unconditional. He further relied upon the following statement of the tenant (Annexure-5) that the respondent is the tenant and Pravinanjay Kumar Jain, the petitioner is admitted to be the landlord of the shop. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITED]...;