JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. KANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals filed by the Defendant Jagdish Prasad Gupta can be conveniently disposed of together. They arise out of two suits filed by the Plaintiffs-Respondents for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant from two different shops and for recovery of rent and damages. On Pati Ram was owner of the disputed shops and the Defendant-Appellant was the tenant of the same on his behalf. Pati Ram made a transfer of these shops in favour of Plaintiffs who are his daughter-in-law and grand sons, by means of a gift deed dated 10-9-1968 and delivered possession to them. The disputed shops had been built after 1951 and thus U. P. Act III of 1947 was not applicable to them. The Defendant fell in arrears of rent and on 30th October, 1969, he was served with a notice of termination of his tenancy. Since he did not comply with that notice, these two suits were filed against him.

(2.) The Defendant contested the suit. The trial court framed relevant issues and after recording the evidence decreed both of them. Being aggrieved the Defendant-Appellant filed appeals which came up for hearing before the Civil Judge Agra. During the pendency of these appeals the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as "U. P. Act XIII of 1972" came into force with effect from 15th of July, 1972, and the Defendant-Appellant made an application under Section 39 of this Act. The Defendant-Appellant deposited the amount of the rent along with costs of the suit etc. and before the court below it was not disputed on behalf of the Plaintiff-Respondents that the amount so deposited represented the correct amount which the Defendant was required to deposit. The court below, however, did not extend, the benefit of this section to the Defendant for the reason that in his written statement be had denied the title of the Plaintiffs and, in the opinion of the Court below, that denial was "wilful and malafide." In the result the decree passed by the trial court were confirmed. Being aggrieved the Defendant Appellant has filed the present appeals before this Court.

(3.) Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the Defendant Appellant: firstly, that the court below erred in holding that the Defendant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 since he had denied the Plaintiffs' title in his written statement. According to the learned Counsel ejectment of the Defendant had not been sought on the ground of forfeiture and even after the Defendant had taken a plea in his written statement disputing the title of the Plaintiffs to the disputed property, no replication was filed nor was any application given to amend the plaint. In the same connection it was submitted that the denial must precede the filing of the suit and if a denial is made in the written statement only, it would not change the nature of the suit. Another submission made was that the Defendant-Appellant had merely denied the Plaintiff's title with a view to put them to prove their title for his satisfaction and in doing to he had neither set up the title in respect of the property in dispute in himself nor he had supported the title of any other person in respect thereof and thus, there was no forfeiture in the eye of law.