VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA,J. - (1.) No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even in the revised call of supplementary fresh cases. Thrice on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was deferred but today he is not present.
(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Judge Small Causes Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 267 of 2011 (Ashad Ullah Khan v. Smt. Bano ) as well as impugned order dated 26.7.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in Small Causes Revision No. 63 of 2015 (Smt. Bano v. Ashad Ullah Khan ).
(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that a SCC suit was filed by one Ashad Ullah Khan (now dead) against the tenant (petitioner herein) for rent and eviction on the ground that the house no. 95/91 Ameenganj, Talaqmahal, Kanpur Nagar was purchased by him from earlier owner vide registered sale dated 25.3.2010 and the defendant is tenant of one quarter no. 97, which has been constructed over 35.95 sq. meter, which is a khapral shed, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It was alleged that the defendant has not paid rent since 21.12.1985 to its earlier landlord also and after the house has been purchased by the plaintiff, she is not paying any rent. A notice dated 28.9.2010 was sent to the defendant but she refused to accept the same and despite of the notice no rent was paid and therefore, the suit for rent and eviction was filed claiming rent from 14.11.2008 to 28.10.2011 and the balance rent being time barred and as such, the same was not claimed. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement claiming that initially the owner of the property in question was one Hind Estate and at present Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) is the owner and the purchase of the property by the present landlord was also disputed on the ground that as after 1981-82 the Hind Estate has been declared as a 'Malin Basti' and therefore, no property can be purchased or sold in this basti and therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is illegal and has no legal force and therefore, the present landlord cannot claim himself to be the landlord of the property in question and as such, suit itself is not maintainable and therefore, no relief for her eviction can be granted.;