S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) DILIP Singh Vaishya, respondent no. 3, is the landlord of premises no. 108/4, P. Road, Kanpur. Shyam Lal Chhibber, the petitioner, is the tenant. A suit No. 400 of 1981 was instituted by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The basis of the suit was that the tenant had denied the little of the landlord in an earlier suit no. 676 of 1973 filed by the landlord against the petitioner tenant and, consequently, he was liable for eviction under section 20 (2) ( f ) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was contested by the petitioner specifically alleging that he did not deny the title of the landlord. The trial court by its judgment dated 22nd November, 1983, dismissed the suit holding that there was no denial of title by the petitioner tenant. Aggrieved by the said decision, a revision was filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The revisional Court by its judgment dated 9th May, 1984, reversed the judgment of the Judge, Small Causes Court, allowed the revision and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th May, 1984, by means of the present petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had never denied the title of the landlord respondent no. 3 in Suit No. 676 of 1973 The view, to the contrary, taken by the revisional court, is erroneous and, as such, the decree for ejectment is liable to be set aside.;