Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HAVING lost from the two Courts below the plaintiff of the SCC Suit No. 147 of 1997 has prayed this Court by means of pre sent petition for quashing of the two orders dated 15.9.2000 passed by the JSCC Agra and the judgment and order dated 7.9.2002 passed by the Revisional Court in Revision No. 70 of 2000. The facts of the case may be noted in brief.
(2.) THE petitioner instituted Suit No. 147 of 1997 against the sole respon dent therein on the allegations that both of them are original residents of Village Verrai Tehsil Khairagarh, District Agra and are related with each other. THEre is a pakka house in the Village Veerai of the petitioner which he got in the registered family partition in the year 1941, in pursuance of an award by the arbitrator dated 11.5.1941. THE plaintiff is pursuance of the aforesaid award of the arbitrator and partition\is the exclusive owner in possession of a double storeyed pakka house described at the foot of the plaint. THE said house was let out to the defendant respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. THE defendant tenant is in arrears of rent since August, 1993 and that the provi sions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the said house as it is situ ate in a rural area. THE tenancy has been determined by the notice dated 2.9.1972 which was served on the defendant on 16.9.1997. Ejectment of the de fendant's, recovery of arrears of rent for the last three years and the damages pendente lile and future @ Rs. 100/-, was claimed. THE said suit was contested by the defendant by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that under the said award of the arbitrators and fam ily partition, the house in dispute was not allotted to the plaintiff and he is not the owner and possession of the said house. THE plea of arrears of rent etc. was also disputed. In paragraph-12 of the written statement a pedigree has been given to show that both the parties are descendants of a common ancestor Raja Ram, who died in the year 1939 and was married twice. From the first wife Ram Swaroop (who has died in the year 1982), fa ther of the defendant was born while from second wife namely Har Pyari, the plaintiff was born. The plaintiff subsequently went to family of his paternal uncle by way of adoption. Raja Ram also migrated to his father in laws house at Dholpur, State of Rajasthan. Therefore, Shiv Narain the plaintiff did not inherit any property left by deceased Raja Ram on account of his adoption. The parties led evidence in support of their respective submissions. The issue whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant be tween the parties, the notice dated 2.9.1997 was served and is it valid, whether the defendant has committed default in payment of arrears of rent and whether the defendant is liable for eviction on account of denial of title of the plaintiff, were framed. Issues No. 1 & 4 relating to relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties and denial of title were decided jointly. The Trial Court found that from the award of the arbitrator and deed of parti tion of the year 1941, it is evident that there were three parties to the said document and Shiv Narain, the plaintiff was third party. At that time he was minor, therefore, his mother Smt. Har Pyari was the natural guardian and in that capacity she signed the partition deed. From the said document, it is evident that the house in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff. Therefore, it rejected the respondents contention that house was allotted to Smt. Har Pyari in the partition and after her death he being the step son inherited the property in dispute singularly. In the alternative, it was found that even if the house was allotted to Smt. Har Pyari the plaintiff/petitioner being the son will in herit the property in question as the defendant has failed to prove the alleged adoption. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to examine the question of re lationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Under the issue No. 2, it was found that the notice dated 2.9.1997 was validly served on 16.9.1997 on the defendant-respondent, but as there was no relation of landlord and tenant in existence between the parties, issue relating to payment of arrears of rent was decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed accord ingly.
(3.) THE aforesaid order has been confirmed by the Court below. It has dis carded the theory as set up by the petitioner that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court as they according to the Revisional Court, are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. Shri Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the facts of the present case, the Courts below ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court as question of title was in volved. Reliance was place on Rakesh Kumar v. VIth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar, 1998 (33) ALR 574=1998 (2) ARC 178; Kalpnath Pandey v. 11th Additional District, 1993 (22) ALR 183 (LB) and Gopal Chand Singh Roy v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1996 (2) ARC 68=1996 (28) ALR 458.;