POONAM SRIVASTAV,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, counsel for petitioner and Sri A.C. Srivastava, counsel for caveator/respondent.
(2.) THIS is tenant's petition arising out of J.S.C.C. Suit No.34 of 1998 Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Kasim. Landlady/respondent purchased house nos.71/2 and 73/1 situated in Mohalla Chaudharayana, Jhansi by means of registered sale deed dated 19.1.1996 from previous owner Uma Shanker Pathak. Landlady claimed that petitioner who is tenant at monthly rent of Rs.20/-, is defaulter since 1989. A demand notice dated 18.11.1996 under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, for arrears of rent and also determining tenancy was served on tenant. Petitioner denied arrears and claimed that tenant was not aware about sale of houses. Prior to service of notice dated 18.11.1996, no rent was due. Original sale deed dated 19.1.1996 was brought on record as paper no. 26-Ga. Both houses 71/2 and 73/1 were purchased by contesting respondent. Recital of sale deed is clear that it is petitioner, who is tenant of both accommodations. Name of Munni Bai, who was admitted to be in possession of one of houses, was not mentioned in the sale deed. In the assessment record of Nagar Nigam pertaining to year 1975 to 1990, it is petitioner alone, who was recorded tenant, therefore, eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting.
(3.) THE Judge Small Causes Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2003 holding that demand notice claiming rent for the period prior to date of notice is invalid, therefore, landlady was not entitled to institute a suit for eviction on the basis of said notice, which was held to be illegal. However, finding on the question of subletting by Judge Small Cause Court was that Munni Bai is not a tenant but she was permitted by existing tenant to occupy accommodation, which was purchased by present landlady by means of sale deed dated 19.1.1996 and thus agreed with the landlady's contention that one room was sublet to Smt. Munni Bai. Landlady/respondent preferred J.S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2004 before Additional District Judge, Jhansi. The said revision was allowed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi vide judgment and order dated 16.7.2009, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. Submission of counsel for tenant/petitioner is that once notice was held to be invalid, suit was not maintainable. Besides, tenant had deposited entire amount required to prevent eviction and to avail benefit provided under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Judge Small Causes Court did not record its finding on this question in respect of which specific issue no.4 was carved out. Since the court had held notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act to be invalid, which was the basis of suit, therefore, no finding was recorded on the question granting benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. ;