RAM LAKHAN Vs. ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tarun Verma appearing for respondents and perused the record. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, Gorakhpur in SCC Revision No. 5 of 2003, Ram Lakhan Singh son of late Kishore Chaudhary v. Keshan Shukla son of late Swaminath Shukla, as well as judgment and order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur in SCC Suit No. 76 of 1992, Sri Keshan Nandan son of Late Swaminath Shukla and others v. Ram Lakhan Singh. Backdrop of the case is that petitioner claims that he took a piece of land on rent @ Rs. 10/- per month from the respondents but rent receipts were not issued to him inspite of demand. He constructed his house over it about 36 years ago. According to him, it was numbered as premises No. C/179/53 and was assessed by Nagar Palika. It is also stated that petitioner had taken electricity connection No. 20903/507/76 in his name.

(2.) It is submitted that a registered notice dated 3.7.1991 was sent to him by the landlord acknowledging that only land had been given on rent to him and the constructions over it were raised by the petitioner. The landlord in that notice had demanded that the constructions made by the petitioner be removed by him and the land be returned to him in vacant condition; that after receipt of the aforesaid notice, when son of plaintiff No. 2 namely Sanjay alias Guddu tried to get forcible possession of the premises constructed by the petitioner, the tenant was compelled to institute Suit No. 1469 of 1991, Ram Lakhan v. Vayu Nand, in which an interim order was granted. It is stated that thereafter a notice dated 30.9.1992 is said to have been sent to the petitioner which he claimed not to have been served on him. By means of this notice, tenancy of the petitioner was terminated.

(3.) Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that inspite of admission of the fact by the landlord that house was constructed by the petitioner, Suit No. 76 of 1992 was filed by Sri Keshri Nandan and Sri Babu Nandan Shukla, alleging for the first time that petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month. It was also stated in the suit that house was not constructed by the plaintiff and that when the petitioner did not pay rent of October, 1989 to 6.11.1992 inspite of the notice dated 30.6.1992, the suit for decree of arrears of rent and eviction was filed.