- (1.) The instant petition, which was originally filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, and later permitted to be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeks to challenge judgement dated 19.10.2013 passed by revisional court in SCC Revision No.4 of 2010 and judgement and decree dated 15.4.2010 passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Suit No.38 of1984.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to instant petition are that SCC Suit No.38 of 1984 was instituted by one Munni Devi (since dead) and now represented by plaintiff-respondent 1st set (for short 'the plaintiff') against Kali Charan (since dead) and now represented by the petitioner (for short 'the defendant') for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction from a shop described at the foot of the plaint by boundaries. It was alleged that the original plaintiff became owner of the shop in the tenancy of the defendant on basis of a registered sale deed dated 6.5.1983/15.6.1983 executed in her favour by Maheshwar Narayan Sadh; that rent upto 31.3.1981 was paid to him; that thereafter the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and consequently, his tenancy was terminated by means of a notice dated 24.4.1984 duly served upon him on 1.5.1984; that the defendant failed to vacate and therefore, the suit was instituted.
(3.) Kali Charan, the original defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit. He disputed that he was tenant in the shop and also the execution of any rent note in favour of Maheshewar Narain Sadh and further pleaded that he never paid rent to him. According to him, the original owner of the shop was his father-in-law Ram Lal. After his death, the shop came in possession of his wife Smt. Brij Rani. According to him, his wife Brij Rani took a loan from Manti Bai. At the time loan was taken, certain blank papers bearing signatures of the defendant were handed over to Maheshwar Narayan and in case he had got prepared any rent note or rent receipt, the same was not binding upon him. There does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant is not tenant on behalf of the plaintiff and notice dated 24.4.1984 was invalid. He also challenged the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes to try the suit.;