Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010 passed by the court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow inSCC Suit No.57 of 2006 and the judgment and order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Lucknow in SCC Revision No.96 of 2010.
(2.) I have heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and also perused the record.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of a house bearing Municipal No.250/56, Sankata Devi Lane, Mohalla Yahiyaganj, Police Station Chowk, Lucknow. The original owner of the house was Mohan Lal Agarwal. He had inducted Mani Ram Dixit as tenant in the premises in dispute. The accommodation in possession of the tenant was both on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. The portion of the first floor was let out to Mani Ram Dixit in the year 1947 on a monthly rent of Rs.3.75 paise. Subsequently, by virtue of allotment order dated 21.09.1974, the ground floor was also allotted to Mani Ram Dixit and the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.5/- per month. The landlord earlier filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. before the City Magistrate, Lucknow. These proceedings were dismissed on 16.07.1981. Thereafter Mohan Lal Agarwal filed SCC Suit No.2450 of 1974, which was also dismissed on 18.08.1977. The landlord in order to harass the petitioners filed an application for release under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972. This application was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was also rejected on 27.09.1980. During the proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise and the rent was enhanced to Rs.25/- per month. The rent was being paid to Mohan Lal Agarwal but after his death, his son Ram Lalkhan Agarwal did not accept the rent and the same was being paid to Surya Prakash Bansal. Ram Lakhan Agarwal died on 17.01.1991. When in the year 2002, Surya Prakash Bansal refused to accept the rent, the rent was sent to him through money order. However, the said money order was also refused. Mani Ram Dixit having no other alternative filed an application under Section 30 (1) of U.P. ACt XIII of 1972 for depositing the rent in the court of Munsif North, Lucknow and the said application was registered as Misc Case No.41 of 2005. In this miscellaneous case, Surya Prakash Bansal appeared but thereafter he failed to appear and consequently the application was allowed and Mani Ram Dixit continued to deposit the rent in the court. In the meantime, Smt. Manju Bansal-opposite party no.3 claiming herself to be the owner of the property filed SCC suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was registered as SCC Suit No.57 of 2006. The suit was contested by the petitioners. The petitioners stated that they were tenants of Mohan Lal Agarwal and after his death, Ram Lakhan Agarwal became landlord and he accepted the rent. Thereafter Surya Prakash Bansal started receiving the rent. However, Ram Lakhan Agarwal also died on 07.01.1991 and thereafter Surya Prakash Bansal accepted rent and also issued rent receipts. The petitioners pleaded that they were never informed with regard to the change of ownership and no notice was ever served upon them. The opposite party no.3 in the meantime filed a suit for declaration against her husband Surya Prakash Agarwal and her mother-in-law Smt.Janki Devi for declaring her as owner on the basis of Will executed by Late Ram Lakhan Agarwal. The suit was a collusive one and the decree obtained by the opposite party no.3 declaring herself as owner, was also in collusion with her husband. The said suit of declaration was decreed on 29.09.2008 and therefore prior to 29.09.2008, the opposite party no.3 Smt. Manju Bansal was neither the owner nor the landlady. However, the learned Small Causes Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010, decreed the suit and the revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the revisional court.;