SHANTI SHARMA Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.8.2009 and 27.5.2011 (contained as Annexure No. 7 and 10 to the writ petition). By judgment dated 31.8.2009, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun (for short J.S.C.C.) has decreed S.C.C. Suit No. 31 of 1984 filed by the plaintiff -respondents Anil Kumar Gupta, Sushil Kumar Gupta and Naveen Kandari, which was filed for eviction, possession and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendant Durga Prasad Pande (since deceased) substituted by his legal heirs Capt. Wishwakant Pandey and others. By the order dated 27.5.2011, the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner Smt. Shanti Sharma against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009.

(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, in brief, are that the plaintiffs -respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendant Durga Prasad Pandey (since deceased) alleging that the plaintiffs are the owner and landlord of the building known as High Land Cottage bearing Municipal No. 4/102 and 4/101 -227 -228 (for short property in dispute) situate at Mussoorie, district Dehradun. The property in dispute was given on annual rent @ Rs. 350/ - to the defendant. The property in dispute belonged to late Jyoti Bhusan Gupta, who had died in the year 1974 and after his death the said property came to the share of the plaintiffs Anil Kumar and Sushil Kumar Gupta. The plaintiffs have a right to file the suit. The rent of the property in dispute was attached for recovery of income tax by the Income Tax Department and now the plaintiffs have already deposited the entire outstanding income tax. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the plaintiffs by notice dated 4.9.1971, but the defendant has neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the property in dispute nor gave possession thereof to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had not paid any rent since 1.4.1958 but the plaintiffs have only claimed rent for the period of last three years. The occupation of the petitioner on the property in dispute is illegal since the tenancy had already been terminated.

(3.) THE defendant Durga Prasad Pande (since decased) contested the suit by filing his written statement contending therein that the defendant has acquired rights and title on the basis of his adverse possession and that the declaratory suit No. 169 of 1984 is pending in the court of Civil Judge, Dehradun. The suit of the respondents is not maintainable.