(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 27.2.1984 and 28.2.1981 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
(2.) The brief facts for the purposes of the present petition, as stated in the petition, are that Suit No. 36 of 1977 was filed by Sri Dhan Prakash, respondent No. 4, against the petitioner, under Section 20 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The relief claimed by the respondent, who was landlord of the premises in question was that the petitioner should be evicted from the accommodation in question as he committed default in payment of rent and continued after termination of his tenancy. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for the damages and mesne profit also. The respondent alleged in the suit that the petitioner was a tenant of the shop on a rent of Rs. 60 per month and that the rent from 1.11.1974 to 31.12.1976 amounting to Rs. 1,300 is due. It was further alleged that a registered notice was sent to the petitioner on 10.1.1977 which was served on the petitioner personally. Therefore, from 12.2.1977 his possession was as trespasser as his tenancy was terminated. The respondent claimed a decree for Rs. 1.300 from 1.11.1974 to 31.12.1975 as arrears of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 70 per month and further a decree for ejectment was also prayed for.
(3.) The suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop on an annual report of Rs. 250 per annum from year to year and not on a rent of Rs. 50 per month. It is further stated by the petitioner that the tenancy began from 1st of January of each year and ended on 31st of December of that year. It was also claimed by the petitioner that he was tenant of the shop from the year 1961 when he took shop from one Kishori Lal father of the plaintiff-respondent and his brother on a rent of Rs. 100 per annum. Later on Kishori Lal enhanced the rent from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 per annum but he never used fo issue any receipt and thus Kishori Lal had realised rent upto 1975. Kishori Lal died in the year 1975 and after his death Sri Jagdish Prasad elder brother of the deceased being karta of the family again enhanced the rent of the shop from Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per annum and rent from 1.1.1976 to 31.12.1976 amounting to Rs. 250 was realised by Sri Jagdish Prasad in the month of February, 1976. It Is further stated that the respondent No. 4 sent a notice that rent from 1.11.1975 is due. It was further stated in the notice that the shop in question was required by the plaintiff for starting some business for his son Mukesh Kumar along with Jagdish Prasad. who wants to start cloth merchant shop jointly with Jagdish Prasad arrears of rent Rs. 1.300 was also mentioned. The notice was replied by the petitioner and the plea which has been taken in the written statement was taken in the notice. It was further stated that after the death of Kishori Lal the elder brother Jagdish Prasad realised Rs. 250 as rent on 16.2.1976 which was paid through Asha Ram owner of the firm Dharam Das Asa Ram. So the rent of the shop was : Rs. 250 per year which was paid upto 31.12.1976. After receipt of the notice Rs. 250 was sent through post which was refused by the plaintiff. After refusal of rent sent ; through post the petitioner deposited the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Court of Munsif Baghpat in Misc. Case No. 108 of 1977 for the period from 1.1.1977 to 31.12.1977 amounting to Rs. 250 which was ordered to be deposited by the Munsif vide order dated 29.8.1977. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent never sent any information ; that the plaintiff was sole landlord on any ground nor Jagdish Prasad his other brother told the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 was the sole owner. It was not pleaded In the plaint that the plain tiff-respondent is the sole landlord on the basis of the Will.