A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) The defendants-applicants have filed this revision against the judgment and decree dated 12-12-1984 passed by Sri Dinesh Chandra, III Addl. District Judge, Allahabad in J.S.C. Suit No. 41 of 1981 decreeing the plaintiffs-opposite parties' suit for ejectment from premises no. 19 Sardar Patel Marg formerly known as 19 Elbert Road, Allahabad (corresponding to its present number) and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits besides the costs of the suit.
(2.) Facts encompassing the controversy and giving rise to this revision are that the opposite-party nos. 1 to 18 had filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes claiming a decree for ejectment of defendant-applicants nos. 1 to 14 from House no. 19 Sardar Patel Marg, formerly known as 19 Elbert Road, Allahabad (with its present corresponding number) and for putting the plaintiffs opposite parties into actual vacant possession of the house besides a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 700/- per day and the costs of the suit. This suit was filed contending that the house was let out after the death of Dr. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru to defendant no. I for accommodating the office of the Railway Service Commission on a rent of Rs. 1562-50 per month, tenancy whereof commences on the first day of each Gregorian Calendar month and ending on the last day of the same month. The premises which was jointly owned by Sri P.N. Sapru, Sri A.N. Sapru and Sri T.N. Sapru as coparceners had died and their interests had been inherited by the heirs who are the plaintiff opposite-parties. Certain compulsions with the growth of the family permitted such heirs for the petition of the house in order to avoid any future controversy amongst the heirs (plaintiffs-opp. parties) and who consequent to such partition may reconstruct the building in such a manner so as to meet the requirements of each heir (Plaintiffs-opp. parties). With this necessity having arisen the plaintiffs-opp. parties requested defendants-applicants nos. 1 to 4 to vacate the premises. However, such a request was spurned by the defendants-applicants nos. 1 to 4. The plaintiffs-opp. parties consequently sent a registered notice dated 20.10.1982 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. This notice was served upon the defendants i.e., Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways on 2.11.1980, General Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad on 3.11.1980 and Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad on 3.11.1980. The defendants-applicants were thus served with such notices. By this notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the plaintiffs-opp. parties called upon the defendants-applicants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the property and also stipulating that on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. the tenancy shall stand terminated. It was also provided in this notice that on the failure of the defendants-applicants to comply with the requirement of the notice a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages would be filed and the defendants-opp. parties after the termination of the tenancy would be liable to pay mesne profits at. the rate of Rs. 700/- per day. The defendant-applicants nos. I to 4 acknowledged receipt of the notice and intimated by letter dated 30.3.1981 that the matter was receiving active consideration of the authorities. However, when the requirements as contained in the notice were not complied with the plaintiffs-opp. parties compellingly sent another notice dated 3.3.1981 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was served on the Union of India defendant-applicant no. 1 on 5.3.1981. Despite this notice the defendant-applicants did not vacate the premises nor paid the amount of arrears of rent as well as the mesne profits which was claimed. It was clearly mentioned in the plaint that the building is let out to the Union of India and would be deemed to be a public building within the meaning of Section 3 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (Act XIII of 1972) and, therefore the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the building.
(3.) On such allegations in the plaint, the suit for the reliefs mentioned above was tiled on 13.10.1981 and was registered as Original Suit no. 41 of 1981, Judge Small Cause Court suit in which the following were arrayed as defendants : 1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Government of India Rail Bhawan New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad. 4. The Railway Service Commission through its Chairman, Allahabad. The defendants contested the suit. Allegations in the plaint were denied. However, while replying to the contents of para 2 of the plaint it was admitted that the premises no. 19 Sardar Patel Marg is in the tenancy of the defendants wherein the office of the Railway Service Commission is accommodated presently on a rent of Rs. 1562.50. For a better appreciation allegations of para 2 of the plaint as well as the contents of para 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants are reproduced : "2. That the house was let out after the death of Sri Tej Bahadur Sapru to defendant no. 1 for accommodating office of the Railway Service Commission on a rent of Rs. 1552.50 P. per month the tenancy of which starts on every 1st of each English Calendar month and ended on the last day thereof". Para 2 of the written statement : "2. That the contents in para 2 of the plaint it is only admitted that the premises no. 19. Sardar Patel Marg is under the tenancy of the defendant where in the office of the Railway Service Commission is accommodated and at present the rate of rent is Rs. 1562.50 per month wherein Rs. 200/- per month is being deducted towards maintenance charges".;