UTTAM CHAND Vs. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means or this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who happen to be tenants of house and shop, i.e., 29, Mohalla Subhash Ganj, Jhansi, (for short 'the building in question'), pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorart quashing the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1999 whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 2, Judge Small Cause Courts, was decreed, the judgment and order dated 10.2.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was dismissed by the revisional court (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 14.2.2000 whereby the review application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the revisional court.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, as set out in the pleadings of parties (writ petition and counter-affidavit) and other material on the record, in brief, are that the respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 80 of 1997 for ejectment of the petitioners from the building in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It was stated that the building in question was originally owned by Shri Khushal Rai. Plaintiff respondent No. 3, Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, purchased the same from Shri Khushal Rai through a registered sale deed dated 23.2.1987. At the time of sale, the building in question was in occupation of the petitioners as a tenant at the rent of Rs. 40 per month which was, by agreement of the parties, enhanced to Rs. 550 per month. Thereafter, a notice dated 26.3.1993 is alleged to have been sent to the petitioners intimating him about the aforesaid transaction of sale and asking for payment of rent. Thereafter, two more notices dated 28.9.1995 and 29.2.1996 were alleged to have been sent to the petitioners by the respondent No. 3 of which no reply was received. Consequently, it was on 13.3.1997 that a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was sent to the petitioners by the respondent No. 3 demanding arrears of rent from 23.2.1987 to 01.4.1997 which was not received by the defendant petitioners and was returned to respondent No. 3 with the endorsement that the postman went to the house of the petitioners at the correct address on 14.3.1997, 15.3.1997, 17.3.1997, 19.3.1997. 20.3.1997, 21.3.1997 and on the last on 23.3.1997 to deliver the said notice to the petitioners and on enquiry, he came to know that the addressee was not met. It was on 14.3.1997 that a cheque of Rs. 4,880 plus Rs. 40, total Rs. 4920, was given to the respondent No. 3 which was presented for encashment before the bank but the same was dishonoured on 17.6.1997. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 filed a suit for the abovementioned relief. On receipt of the summons from the trial court, petitioners filed their written statement pleading that they were in occupation of the building in question as a tenant at the rent of Rs. 40 per month, which they used to pay to Shri Khushal Rai. the original owner ; that the rate of rent was never revised or enhanced to Rs. 550, that the allegation made to the contrary was incorrect ; that the notice dated 26.3.1993 was replied through one Shri Brij Kishore, Advocate. In reply of the notice, the respondent No. 3 was also asked to supply a copy of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in his favour by Shri Khushal Rai but which was never sent to the petitioners by the said respondent. It was on 14.3.1997 that a cheque of Rs. 488 was given to the respondent No. 3. which covered the amount of rent from 1.2.1987 to 31.3.1997. Thereafter, money order for an amount of Rs. 40 was also sent in the month of May, 1997 as the aforesaid money order was returned to the petitioners and cheque was not honoured by the bank and the amount of Rs. 4,920 was deposited in the Court under Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (for short, "the Act"), in the name of the respondent No. 3, which was permitted to be deposited by the Court concerned at the risk of the petitioners : that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners committed no default and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed three issues which related to the sufficiency of service of the notice of termination of tenancy and demand, default in payment of rent committed by the petitioners and the relief. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusing the entire evidence on record, recorded clear and categorical findings on all the three issues in favour of the plaintiff respondent No. 3. It was held that the notice of demand and termination of tenancy was duly served upon the petitioners through the post office and by affixation on the building in question, but inspite of service of notice, the amount of rent was not paid to him by the petitioners within the statutory period. The petitioners, therefore, was a defaulter within the meaning of the term used under Clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 was entitled to the relief claimed by him. Having recorded the said findings, the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages was decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 14.5.1999. Challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, petitioners filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 10.2.2000. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application before the Court below, which was also dismissed on 14.2.2000, hence the present petition.