Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of Judge, Small Causes, Bulandshahr, dated 14th May, 1979 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the said judgment was affirmed in revision by the Revisional Court on 18th October, 1984. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed suit No. 255/70 for eviction of Respondents No. 3 and 4 and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation in the court of Judge Small Causes on the grounds that Respondent No. 3 was a tenant of the shop in dispute which was formerly owned by the Petitioner No. 2 and later on purchased by petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 1 sent notice dated 22nd September, 1969 to Respondent No. 3 but he denied the title of petitioner No. 1. It was further stated that Respondent No. 3 committed default in payment of arrears of rent and had sub -let the shop to Respondent No. 4. The suit was contested by Respondent No. 3. It was denied that he was defaulter in payment of rent and had sub -let shop in suit to any other person. He had deposited the rent in the court under Section 7C of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was denied that the petitioner had become owner of the property in dispute by virtue of the sale deed which matter was sub -judice. The trial court recorded findings that the plaintiffs completely failed to establish the plea of sub -letting and dismissed the suit. Against this order the revision has been filed which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court.
(2.) SRI K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff had denied the title of Petitioner No. 1 and as such he was liable for eviction of the shop on the ground of Section 20(2) of the Act which provides that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right of re -entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant. The courts below have found that Petitioner No. 1 never denied the title of Petitioner No. 2 in the shop in dispute. The title of Petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed denied on the ground that after having entered into the agreement for sale of property of the tenant the plaintiff could not lawfully transfer the same to the tenant. The validity of the transfer deed in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 was also challenged on the ground that the sale consideration was not deposited in the court as per terms and order for permission passed by the District Judge. In these circumstances the tenant was held entitled to deposit the rent in court and to continue to do so till his suit for the specific performance of the earlier agreement was finally decided. In these circumstances it cannot be held that Respondent No. 3 renounced his character as that of a tenant against the lawful owner of that property. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.;