RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 2 from a house in the court of the Judge, Small Causes. His case was that one Sahu Ram Shanker was the owner of the house in question and respondent No. 2 was its tenant. His further case was that Sahu Ram Shankar had executed an agreement for sale in respect of the aforesaid house in his favour and had authorised him to realise its rent from respondent No. 2. According to him in view of the provisions contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act on the basis of the agreement, referred to above, became entitled to realise rent from respondent No. 2 and on this ground he was the landlord of respondent No. 2 within the meaning of the said term as defined in Section 3(j) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Decree for ejectment had been prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 had denied his title and also that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The suit was contested by respondent No. 2 but on the finding that the petitioner was the landlord of the accommodation in question and respondent No. 2 had denied his title, the Judge, Small causes decreed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by that decree, respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the District Judge which was transferred to the IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh respondent No. 1, who allowed the revision on 22nd July, 1980. He took the view that even though the petitioner had become the landlord of the accommodation in question on account of the agreement, referred to above since no sale-deed had yet been executed in his favour by Sahu Ram Shanker, he had not become the fulfledged owner of the house in question. According to him since title in respect of the house in question did not vest in the petitioner, it could not be said that respondent No. 2 had denied his title. On this view the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for review before the Additional District Judge which too was dismissed on 15th October, 1980. It is the order dated 22nd July, 1980 allowing the review filed by respondent No. 2 and dated 15th October, 1980, dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the landlord of the house in question and since respondent No. 2 had denied his title the suit had rightly had been decreed by the Judge, Small Causes in view of the provisions contained in this behalf in Section 20(2)(f) of the Act. According to counsel for the petitioner the words "that the tenants has..............denied the title of the landlord" occurring in Section 20(2)(f) of the Act do not contemplate denial of the ownership of the landlord and the Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in taking a contrary view.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. That by virtue of the agreement relied on by the petitioner he became the landlord of the accommodation in question is a proposition of law which admits of no doubt in view of the decision of this court in Ram Prasad v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad (1), when clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act permits the landlord to institute a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has denied his title, the said clause unambiguously refers to the denial of the title of the landlord as defined in Section 3(j) of the Act. It does not contemplate denial of the ownership of the person who claims to be the landlord. Once it is established that the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment on the ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(f) of the Act is the landlord of the defendant and that the defendant has denied his title as landlord the case is fully covered by clause (f) of Section 20(2) of the Act. It is not necessary for the applicability of the sold clause (f) that the plaintiff should also be the owner of the property in the tenancy of the defendant and the denial was with regard to the ownership of the plaintiff. In view of the forgoing discussion it is apparent that the Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in taking a contrary view and reversing the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes. His order, therefore, cannot be sustained.