SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant- tenant/petitioner. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:- "(I) Issue an order or direction in suitable nature by quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Small Causes Judge, Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Case No.26 of 2002 (Ravi Sharma Versus Sri Bhagwan Sharma) and impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Aa.Va. Adhiniyam) Ghaziabad in SCC Civil Revision no.98 of 2010 and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the plaintiff-respondent not to dispossess to the defendant-petitioner from the shop in question."
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed shop No.50 (New No.127), Mohalla Ganjimal, Dasna Gate, Ghaziabad was originally owned by one Smt. Chandra Kanti, who sold it to Smt. Chando Devi by Registered Sale Deed dated 20 th April, 1965. Thus, Smt. Chando Devi became the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. She filed SCC Suit No.337 of 1973 (Smt. Chando Devi Vs. Shri Bhagwan) for eviction of the defendant-tenant/petitioner herein, claiming rent to be paid Rs.75/- per month. However, the court found rent to be Rs.20/- per month. However, the aforesaid suit (SCC No.337 of 1973) was dismissed by judgment dated 30.09.1977 passed by Judge Small Cause Court/ Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-tenant/petitioner stopped paying rent since April, 1984. The aforesaid Smt. Chando Devi (owner and landlord of the disputed shop) had two sons. However, by a Registered Will Deed dated 17the April, 1998, she bequeathed the disputed shop to her grandson Ravi Sharma, who is plaintiff-respondent herein. Thereafter, Smt. Chando Devi died on 06.10.1999. After her death, plaintiff-respondent herein has became owner and landlord of the disputed shop. Since rent was not being paid by the defendant-tenant/petitioner, therefore, he issued a notice dated 04.02.2002 to the defendant- tenant/petitioner, which was served on 06.02.2002. Despite receiving the notice, the defendant-tenant/petitioner neither vacated the disputed shop nor paid the rent and instead sent a reply of the notice. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed SCC No. 26 of 2002 (Ravi Sharma, Advocate Vs. Shri Bhagwan Sharma). This suit was decreed by Judge Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010. Aggrieved with this judgment, defendant- tenant/petitioner filed SCC Revision No.98 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Ghaziabad. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits as under:- (i) The petitioner has deposited the entire rent on the first day of hearing by tender being paper No.121ga and, therefore, he was entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act 13 of 1972'), but the court below has committed manifest error of law, by not extending the benefit to the petitioner. (ii) The plaintiff-respondent has no title to the disputed shop and the alleged Will dated 17.04.1998 was under challenge in O.S. No. 1111 of 2003 (Moolchandra Sharma Vs. Pt. Amrit Lal Sharma and others). (iii) The plaintiff-respondent has not submitted any probate or Will and, therefore, the Will was not proved and consequently, the plaintiff-respondent was having no title to the disputed shop. (iv) The defendant-tenant/petitioner was depositing the rent in Case No.173 of 1973 under Section 30 of U.P Act 13 of 1972, since the year 1984 and as such there was no arrears of rent. He never defaulted in deposit of rent or payment of rent.;