SHEIKH MOHD ISLAM Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment and decree passed by JSCC and confirmed by A.D.J., in revision. Initially suit for ejectment being SCC Suit No. 255 of 1988 was filed by respondent No. 4, Abdul Hameed Ansari against tenant petitioner. During pendency of the suit in the year 1993 respondent No. 4 gifted the property to one Sarfaraz. Later on Sarfaraz transferred the property to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 thereafter got itself impleaded in the said suit as plaintiff. Additional JSCC, Varanasi through judgment and decree dated 12.3.1999 decreed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree tenant petitioner filed a revision being Rent Revision No. 42 of 1999. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Varanasi through judgment and order dated 15.4.2004 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. Heard Sri P.K. Jain learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Singh learned Counsel appearing for landlord respondent.

(2.) THE first point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that arrears of rent had not been transferred hence respondent No. 3 was not entitled to arrears of rent before 1995. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that through the sale deed arrears of rent were transferred. The other point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that rate of rent was Rs. 25/ - per month and not Rs. 100/ - per month and the finding of the Courts below regarding thee rate of rent being Rs. 100/ - per month are vitiated in law as the best evidence to prove the same could have been the oral evidence of initial landlord respondent No. 4 who was not examined.

(3.) REGARDING difference of rate of rent and date from which respondent No. 3 may be held entitled to recover the same, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that he was ready to give up his claim provided that possession was given to him immediately. The Court put two options to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. One of the options was that tenant should vacate the premises immediately then he would be relieved from his liability to pay any rent except rent at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month from 1995, when respondent No - 3 purchased the property. The other option was that the petitioner might be granted one years time to vacate provided that petitioner paid the entire decretal amount. Learned Counsel for the petitioner opted the first option.