SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner National Cadet Corps 30 U.P. Battalion, Bijnor through its Commanding Officer, district Bijnor and also by the State of U.P. through Collector, District Bijnor challenging the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Revisional Court and the judgment and order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2015 (Smt. Kanti Sharma and others v. National Cadet Corps 30 U.P. Battalion ).
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is the tenant of the said property since 1964, which was let out by its original owner late Babu Ram Sharma, who expired in the year 1994 leaving behind seven sons and two daughters. The first son was Satyaveer Sharma and the second was Dharamveer Sharma. Satyaveer Sharma continued to take rent from petitioner No. 1 upto 30.01.2013.
(3.) It has been alleged that on the basis of an oral partition between the successors of late Babu Ram Sharma, Dharamveer Sharma, the husband of plaintiff No. 1 received the eastern part of the property situated in Civil Lines, Bijnor including the tenanted premises of the petitioners. On the basis of this oral partition in January, 2013, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, sent a legal notice to the tenant regarding ownership of the property and payment of rent. The petitioner No. 1 sought legal opinion from the D.G.C. (Civil), Bijnor. On the basis of the legal opinion dated 22.01.2013, the rent of the disputed property came to be deposited under section 30 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, (herein-after referred to as the "U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972"). The petitioners also received notice on 16.06.2014 from one Shri Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of one Parmarth Marketing Pvt. Ltd. claiming themselves to be the landlord and asking for payment of rent. The petitioners on the advise of D.G.C. (Civil), Bijnor continued to pay rent in Court under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 regularly and without any default. On 19.12.2014, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sent a legal notice for terminating of tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The petitioners sent their reply on 29.12.2014 giving them details of rent being deposited under section 30 (2) of the Act in Misc. proceedings in the court concerned. In the suit filed thereafter namely the SCC Suit No. 10 of 2015 by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also a written statement was filed, wherein again the fact was mentioned that the rent was being deposited regularly under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and an affidavit to this effect was also filed by Colonel Sandeep Sen, and the tenant's/defendant's witnesses were also examined.;