S.D.Agarwala - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings in Suit No. 94 of 1976 filed by Smt. Khillo, respondent no. 3, against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages in respect of the building in dispute.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant Smt. Khillo transferred the property in dispute by a sale deed in favour of Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar, thereafter, transferred by another sale deed dated 18th November, 1987, to Sushil Kumar Saxena. Both Ashok Kumar and Sushil Kumar Saxena, who are subsequent transferees, have been impleaded as respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively to this petition. The suit was filed on the basis of default under section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is a ground for eviction where the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same, to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him through the notice of demand. In the instant case, on 26th May, 1986, Smt. Khillo issued a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, to the petitioner claiming rent from 23rd August. 1973 to 22nd August, 1976. Inspite of receipt of this notice, it is not disputed, the petitioner did not pay any rent to Smt. Khilio. The defence set up by the petitioner was that, in fact, he had paid rent to Om Prakash, who, according to him, was the adopted son of Smt. Gyaso, who was the landlord of the said premises. It is also not disputed that after the receipt of the notice, the petitioner did not deposit any rent under section 30 of the Act. in the suit, a further plea was taken that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between Smt Gyaso and the petitioner and, consequently, the petitioner was not a defaulter in the eye of the law.
(3.) THE Judge, Smalt Causes Court, by judgment dated 9th May, 1980, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Smt. Khillo and the petitioner and since the petitioner did not pay rent inspite of the notice of demand, the petitioner was a defaulter and. consequently, a decree for ejectment was passed against the petitioner along with arrears of rent and damages. Aggrieved by the said decision dated 9th May. 1980. the petitioner filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. This revision was also dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mathura, by bis judgment dated 6th March, 1981. THE petitioner has now challenged the judgments dated 9th May, 1980, and 6th March, 1981, by means of the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties;