M.C. JOHNSON Vs. V.P. BUKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by a decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against him in S.C.C. Suit No. 86/1986, the petitioner -tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act which was dismissed' by the respondent No. 3 vide the judgment and order dated 28 -1 -1993. He has now approached this Court for redress seeking the reversal thereof. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the plaintiff No. 1 who is the son of plaintiff No. 2 has purchased the building of which the premises in dispute forms part, on 21 -8 -1963 and the fact that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the aforesaid building is not disputed. The petitioner -tenant, however, had asserted that the plaintiff No. 1 was not the landlord of the premises in dispute and consequently had no right to determine his tenancy. The plea raised was that as the plaintiff No. 1 on account of his not being the landlord, could not terminate the tenancy of the petitioner, the suit for his ejectment was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 20, of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). On the aforesaid pleadings the Trial Court framed an issue being issue No. 1 to the effect as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant. After considering the evidence, oral and documentary which was brought on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 did exist. On this finding the other issue relating to the validity of the notice determining the tenancy of the defendant at the instance of plaintiff No. 1 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that the notice in question had the effect of terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The Trial Court had further recorded a finding that the defendant was a defaulter as contemplated under the provisions contained in Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and further that he had not paid rent since July, 1982. On the aforesaid findings the suit was decreed as claimed. This decree has been affirmed by the revisional court which was of the view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court could not be said to be vitiated on account of any error of law.

(2.) IN support of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the question/relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant as well as the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy. The submission is that in case no such relationship existed the notice at the instance of plaintiff No. 1 could not have the effect of terminating the tenancy of the defendant and the suit was, therefore, not maintainable.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid definition indicates that a landlord as contemplated under the Act includes the agent or attorney of such person Such an agent as contemplated in the aforesaid definition may be a person to whom right, to collect rent on behalf of the landlord has been granted. Further such agent can also be a person who stands authorised not only to collect the rent on behalf of the landlord but also to let out the building on his behalf. The rights vesting in an agent or attorney of landlord have to be governed by the extent of such authority which is conferred by the principal on the agent or the attorney.