SAGHIR AHMAD Vs. JUDGE SMALL CAUSESS COURT BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before noticing the facts and merits, it would be relevant to note the background of the case. Facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in the writ petition are that the petitioners claim to be the owners and landlords of the property in dispute that a suit was filed by the petitioners being Original Suit No. 356 of 1992 against the respondents for eviction was decreed on 25.7.1994 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) on the ground that as the tenancy was of open piece of land and the tenant had constructed the shop without permission of the landlord. A notice was served by the petitioners upon him terminating tenancy of respondent No. 3 who was tenant of piece of land terminating tenancy. The respondent tenant replied to the notice allegedly denying the title of the petitioners.

(2.) It is in the aforesaid background that the SCC Suit No. 64 of 1996 was filed on the ground of denial of the title which was dismissed by the order dated 27.11.1997 vide Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition holding that the original contract of tenancy was of an open piece of land and as no permission was granted by the landlord to construct the shop. Therefore, neither U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applicable nor the provisions of section 29-A are attracted. Revision No. 73 of 1997 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.11.1997 was dismissed on 28.11.1998 which is appended as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition.

(3.) An application was then filed by the petitioners under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was also rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable as the tenancy was open piece of land.