SATISH Vs. DAYA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court / VIIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 2011, "Satish Kumar Vs. Daya Shankar"?, whereby the trial court has allowed the application (paper no. 18C) filed by defendant/respondent under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"?).

(2.) Facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the revisionist/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit stating therein that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The same was letout by him to the father of defendant late Sri Hari Prasad at the rate of rent Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is further contended that after the death of Sri Hari Prasad, the defendant succeeded the tenancy rights and become the tenant of the plaintiff. The tenant has committed default in payment of rent then notice was issued to him to pay the defaulted payment of rent. It is contended that the property in dispute is within the limits of Nagar Palika, Dehradun and, as such, the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 ) as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand are not applicable to the suit property. The respondent/defendant filed his written statement. The fact that the suit property was letout to his father has not been denied, however, it is stated that the respondent is carrying a business in the name and style of M/s National Traders after the death of his father. It is also stated that plaintiff-revisionist himself executed a registered agreement to sell the said property on 18.05.1995 in favour of M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar, Tabru, District Gurgaon, Harayna for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/- each shop and has acknowledged the receipt and adjustment of Rs. 1,05,000/- for each shop and has agreed to execute the sale deeds and has agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 10,000/- for each shop on the date of sale and another was executed by M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar in favour of the Sachin Gupta son of the revisionist. It is contended that the respondent has taken the suit property @Rs.1,000/- per month on rent from M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar in the year 1995 and paid the rent to him.

(3.) An application under Section 23 of the Act had been filed by the respondent-defendant stating that the plaintiff himself has executed the agreement to sell on 18.05.1995 in favour of Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar, therefore, the question of title is involved and the suit be returned to the plaintiff to institute regular civil suit in the competent court of jurisdiction. In the said application, it is stated that a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent has been filed by the plaintiff-revisionist claiming himself to the owner of the suit property. The defendant has challenged the relationship of the landlord and tenant. It is also stated that neither the plaintiff-revisionist is owner of suit property nor any relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between them.