SHAFIQUE AHMAD Vs. ANOOP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Istiaque Ahmad, the learned Counsel duly assisted by Mr. T. A. Khan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) The facts and the controversy leading to the filing of the writ petition in a nutshell is, that the opposite party alleges himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question. It is alleged that he had purchased the premise by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1982 from the previous owner Ranveer Singh alias Ravindra Shamsher Jung. It is alleged that the original tenant was Abdul Hamid and, upon his death, his heirs became the statutory tenants. The opposite party landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenants and for arrears alleging that the Defendants had not paid any rent from 27.12.1982 till 26.06.1991 amounting to Rs. 19,201.50 paise and inspite of requests and service of notice of demand, the Defendants failed to pay the rent. Eventually, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued determining the tenancy after the expiry of six months, which came to an end on 15.01.1992, inspite of which the Defendants did not pay the rent and nor vacated the premises. Hence, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages was filed.

(3.) The Defendants appeared and filed the written statements and denied the ownership of the Plaintiff. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff was not the owner or landlord of the property in question and that the alleged sale deed was a fabricated piece of document, which Cannot be taken into consideration. In the additional written statement, the Defendants admitted the receipt of the notice and submitted that in reply to the said notice, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant was denied and that the ownership of the Plaintiff was also denied.