SHUSHILA DEVI Vs. BANSHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by the landlord, challenging the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar dated 8.12.2004 passed in Small Cause Case No. 25 of 1999 by which he has. rejected the suit of the petitioner and the order of the Additional District. Judge, Bulandshahar dated 23.10.2003 by which the revision filed by the landlord has been dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner had let out two shops, situated at Mohalla Brahmnan Khurja on the rent of Rs. 750/- per month to late Kashi Ram. When late Kashi Ram could not pay the rent after 1.8.1996, despite the repeated requests, the petitioner given notice dated 8.3.1997 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for arrear of rent, damages and eviction from the premises which has been served upon late Kashi Ram on 14.3.1997. Late Kashi Ram given the reply of the notice. Neither rent has been paid nor the premises has been vacated. Kashi Ram died on 25.5.1997 and after the death of Kashi Ram his heirs who are defendant-respondents in the present writ petition came in possession of the shops in dispute.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit against the heirs of late Kashi Ram for eviction on 12.3.1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurja, which has been registered as Small Cause Case No. 21 of 1997. The defendant-respondents filed the written statement. However, it appears that their defence has been subsequently struck off. Therefore, the case has been contested by the defendants on the pleading made in the plaint and written statement itself.

(3.) The petitioner contended that after the death of late Kashi Ram and after the termination of tenancy, the defendants being the legal heirs continued to remain in possession as statutory tenants as they stepped on the shoe of late Kashi Ram and once the notice under Section 106 of the Act has been given to late Kashi Ram, the tenant, which was duly served on him, the tenancy stood terminated, therefore, no further notice was required to be given to the heirs of late Kashi Ram, the defendants in the suit. It was contended that the defendants continued as the statutory tenants and, therefore, the relationship of the landlord and the tenants continued, thus, the suit was cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court.