- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by respondent No. 2 on the ground of default in payment of rent and denial of title. The property in dispute is a residential portion comprising of two rooms, veranda, Court yard and chabootra on ground floor in house No. 119/449 situate at Darshanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar. Rate of rent is Rs. 8. 75 that is less than Rs. 9/- per month. The suit was registered as SCC suit No. 304 of 1988 on the file of JSCC (II), Kanpur Nagar. The previous landlord was Mannoo Lal Kedar Nath. There were income tax dues against him hence his house containing the portion in dispute was attached and sold by income tax authorities. The income tax authorities sold the portion in dispute to landlord-respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar Raghubanshi through registered sale-deed dated 4-10-1985. The trial Court held that the sale-deed dated 4-10-1985 was void as it was not proved by respondent No. 2 that the auction proceedings were properly conducted. The version of the tenant that income tax authorities were in collusion with respondent No. 2 and sale-deed dated 4-10-1985 was result of the said collusion was accepted by the trial Court. Ultimately trial Court held that relationship of landlord aid tenant was not established. It may be mentioned that tenant had himself filed Suit No. 248 of 1986 claiming a right of pre-emption. Thereafter trial Court held that in any case tenant had deposited the entire rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing hence he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Ultimately trial Court dismissed the suit on 17-4-1997. Against the said judgment and decree landlord- respondent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 115 of 1997. IXth A. D. J. , Kanpur Nagar allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the landlord through judgment and order dated 22-9-1999 which is challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) REVISIONAL Court held that respondent No. 2 had fully approved the title. In respect of benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, revisional Court held that as tenant had denied the title of the landlord hence he was not entitled to the benefit of the said sub-section. I fully agree with the first finding of the revisional Court. Income Tax authorities had sold the portion/property in dispute to respondent No. 2. The original owner/defaulter had not questioned the said sale-deed. The tenant could not question the said sale proceedings. Moreover, after execution of sale-deed it was not open to the tenant who was in the position of a third party to question the validity of proceedings of auction and sale. In any case unless the sale was directly challenged, it could not be sought to be ignored as void in incidental proceedings. There is always a presumption of correctness in discharge of official acts.;