Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THIS writ petition raises issues which begin with inequitable pleas. The petitioner, sixteen years ago, broke into an accommodation at 70-A, Alimpura, Vishleshwarpur, Meerut Cantonment and thereafter continued to reside there by harassing the erstwhile owner by neither vacating or paying rent consideration for the use and occupation of the premises. The owner (landlord) resided in Agra. Being unsuccessful in shaking the petitioner off his back the owner sold the property to one Jagmandar Dass Singhal by a sale deed executed on 23rd May, 1984. The petitioner continued to occupy the premises and would not pay rent to the subsequent purchaser respondent no. 3. He was questioned by respondent no. 3 that he had paid rent on occasions to the erstwhile owner in cash and by cheques but stopped paying it somewhere in May, 1984.
(2.) AN action by a suit was filed against the petitioner is pursuance of subclause (2) of Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking eviction on the ground that the petitioner would not pay rent and had made structural alterations in the building. The petitioner in the written statement took up the defence that the subsequent purchaser respondent no. 3 is not the owner and even otherwise the petitioner has ownership rights on the premises. The petitioner in his defence urged that no rent was due; that he had the right to make material alterations on the ground that he was the owner of the property, and had become as such, by adverse possession. In his written statement before the Judge Small Causes, he questioned the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes on the ground that the question of title cannot be gone into by that court and it would be better if the pleas were decided before a civil court. The Judge Small Causes took the view that if there was an issue on ownership, it can be decided only after the parties have adduced evidence, and until this does not happen the court cannot reflect upon the proposition of ownership. The request of the petitioner that the plaint be returned to the civil court was denied and the application seeking such a request was rejected. This was the order of the Judge Small Causes on 9th September, 1986. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision before the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The learned District Judge, aforesaid, was of the view that the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes to decide the question of relationship of landlord-tenant is not taken away by the denial of the plaintiff's title by the defendant. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that this question can be examined by the Judge Small Causes despite the denial by the defendant and the trial court had committed no error when it had wanted to be prima facie satisfied that indeed if there be an issue of title then parties must adduce evidence to show that such was the case, and merely saying so would not do. The learned District Judge has examined the issues of how the petitioner forcibly occupied the house and had denied his erstwhile owner access to it and later confronted the owner with the claim that he was in adverse possession. These observations have been set on record by the District Judge and are part of the petition.
(3.) THE petitioner has no hesitation in placing on record a letter dated loth May, 1971 of the erstwhile owner by which the petitioner had been charged of breaking open the locks of the house and occupying it illegally. THE allegation against the petitioner was trespass and house breaking. It has been contended at the bar on behalf of the petitioner that this is how he came into possession and now has title on the aforesaid property by adverse possession. In fact the petitioner claims to take support from this letter of the owner, to justify possession of the property. The letter reads : "Dear Ram Kishan Ji, Agra 10-5-71 My son-in-law Dr. M. P. Gupta from Meerut has informed me that you have broken open the locks of my kothi No. 70-A, Alimpura, Meerut Cantt and have taken possession of the same. Thereafter last week when I visited Meerut I visited the said kothi also and saw that you have really occupied my building after breaking open the locks. When I contacted you then you misbehaved and started alleging yourself to be the owner of the said kothi and told me that 1 may do whatever I can do though keeping in view our past relations it was not proper on your part and our relations were also not close to that extent that you entered into the said premises yourself after breaking open the locks without taking permission from me. I am very sad on your said conduct and you must change your behaviour and treatment. Instead of feeling sorry on the said incident and asking me to forgive you, and vacating the house, you have threatened me and started alleging yourself to be the owner of the said property. Now you must realise one thing very clearly that there must not be any misunderstanding in your mind that since I reside at Agra, therefore, I cannot evict you from the said house. I hereby ask you to vacate the said accommodation atonce and give me the keys of the said accommodation after locking the doors otherwise I will take both civil and criminal action against you and will also lodge first information report against you. I am writing this latter to you so that you might withdraw your action and good senses may prevail upon you so that in future you may not claim for what I did. Hoping for an early reply. Yours sincerely Sd/- Munish Chandra Agrawal;