HAROLD WILLIAM Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition against whom suit for ejectment has been decreed by both the courts below mainly on the ground of denial of title as provided under Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 147 of 1986 and was decreed by Additional J.S.C.C., Bareilly on 27.2.1991. Revision filed by the tenant petitioner numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 10 of 1991 was dismissed by Xth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, through judgment and order dated 8.7.1994. This writ petition is directed -against the aforesaid judgment and decree.

(2.) According to the plaint, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition the defendant was allottee of the house in dispute through an allotment order dated 28.3.1980 obtained in collusion with the previous tenant Ram Chandra who is close relative of the defendant. It has further been stated in the plaint that father of the plaintiff Albert Singh filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed by previous owner of the house in dispute in his favour being Original Suit No. 20 of 1981 which was decreed through compromise dated 12.1.1984 on 1.2.1984 and the Court executed the sale deed in pursuance of the said decree on 17.5.1984. In para 10 of the plaint it was asserted that defendant in various proceedings denied the title of the plaintiff however, no detail of the proceedings was given in said para. In para 11 of the plaint it was stated that on 18.9.1986 plaintiff sent notice to the defendant determining the tenancy. In reply which was dated 18.10.1986 defendant denied the title of the plaintiff. It has not been stated in the plaint whether any notice intimating about the sale deed dated 17.5.1984 was given to the defendant before 18.10.1986 or not. In para 6 of the reply to the notice it was stated by the defendant that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 as he had no knowledge of the forged agreement or collusive suit for specific performance. It was further stated in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and the rent had not been paid to the plaintiff. The notice is Annexure-1 to the writ petition and its reply is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In para 6 of the reply noticed it was stated :

(3.) As stated earlier in para 11 of the plaint the case of denial of title was based on para 6 of reply notice itself and the earlier part of para 6 of the said reply notice was noted in inverted commas in the said para 11 of the plaint.