RAJA RAM SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff of SCC Suit No.31 of 1990 that had been filed for ejectment of the defendants and for recovery of arrears of rent has filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 16th October, 2006 by which the Revision filed by defendant no.2-Dev Pal (respondent no.3) for setting aside the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2000 of the Judge, Court of Small Causes has been partly allowed. The decree for recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f. 12th January, 1989 has been maintained but the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the shop has been dismissed.

(2.) SCC Suit No.31 of 1990 had been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for ejectment of defendant no.1-Dori Lal (since deceased) and defendant no.2-Dev Pal from the shop and for recovery of arrears of rent with the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and the landlord of the shop; that defendant no.1-Dori Lal was the tenant of the shop on monthly rent of Rs.100/-; that defendant no.1 did not pay the rent of the shop w.e.f. 12th January, 1989; that defendant no.1, without the consent of the landlord, had put defendant no.2-Dev Pal, who is not a member of family of defendant no.1, in possession of the shop and sublet it to him on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-; that the defendants, without the permission of the landlord in writing, made structural alterations in the building on 13th August, 1990; that defendant no.1 had knowledge, from the beginning, that previously Pandit Anant Ram who was the owner of the building had executed a will in favour of Surendra Kumar, brother of the plaintiff, who by a registered sale deed dated 11th March, 1987 sold the property to the plaintiff whereafter the plaintiff became the owner and landlord of the premises; that the defendants were, therefore, also liable for ejectment as defendant no.1 in Original Suit No.232 of 1990 instituted by him against the present plaintiff for injunction denied the title of the landlord and asserted that the present plaintiff was the co-owner of the property with his brothers; that the notice dated 17th September, 1990 for termination of the tenancy was served on defendant no.1 on 18th September, 1990 but defendant no.2 refused to accept the notice; that the tenancy stood terminated on expiry of the period mentioned in the notice but the defendants did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did they handover the possession of the shop to the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant no.1-Dori Lal died before he could file the written statement. He was substituted by his adopted son Mohit Kumar (son of Dev Pal) as defendant no.1/1 and a written statement was filed on his behalf through his mother but defendant no.2 did not file any written statement.