KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SCC Suit No. 128 of 1997 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment from a shop situated on the ground floor of building no. D 65/48 Lahartara, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as "the shop"). According to plaint case, building no. D 65/48 Lahartara, Varanasi belonged to one Kallan. He executed a registered will in favour of his wife Smt. Shivmurti Devi. The petitioner was a tenant in the shop on behalf of the Kallan. After death of Kallan, according to plaint case, the petitioner started paying rent to Shivmurti Devi. Shivmurti Devi is alleged to have executed an agreement in respect of northern portion of the building, which includes the demised premises, in favour of the plaintiff alongwith delivery of possession. Subsequently, in September, 1990 a sale deed was also executed by Shivmurti Devi in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is alleged that since September, 1990 the petitioner had not paid rent to the plaintiff. Consequently, by means of a notice dated 21.7.1997, arrears of rent was demanded and the tenancy was terminated on expiry of period of 30 days. It was alleged that, in spite of service of notice, the petitioner failed to tender rent to the plaintiff-respondent and hence, there is default in payment of rent, for which the petitioner is liable to ejectment. .

(2.) The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement. It is admitted that the petitioner was tenant in the shop on behalf of Kallan. It is alleged that after the death of Kallan, his widow Shivmurti Devi and daughter Pyari Devi inherited the property. It was denied that Kallan executed any will in favour of Shivmurti Devi. It was alleged that Shivmurti Devi and Pyari Devi became landlord of the property and rent was paid to them. After death of Shivmurti Devi, rent was being realised by Smt. Pyari Devi. It was further alleged that Shivmurti Devi had not executed any sale deed, nor any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He never became landlord of the property. The receipt of notice dated 21.7.1997, as well as default in payment of rent was denied. The plaintiff-respondent filed a replication and categorically denied the allegation that Smt. Pyari Devi is daughter of Late Kallan. It was also pleaded that the petitioner is in collusion with Smt. Pyari Devi. He paid rent to Smt. Shivmurti Devi and not to Smt. Pyari Devi.

(3.) The Judge Small Causes decreed the suit by judgment dated 20.5.2013. On point no.1, Judge Small Causes held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On point no. 2, it is held by the Judge Small Causes that the notice dated 21.7.1997 was duly served on the petitioner by registered post and the said notice also validly terminates his tenancy. On point no. 3, it is held that admittedly the petitioner had not tendered any rent to the plaintiff-respondent and thus, there is default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. On point no. 4, it is held that no intricate question of title is involved in the suit and the Judge Small Causes was competent to decide the same. With these findings, the suit was decreed for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month since 1.10.1994, and for ejectment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Judge Small Causes, the petitioner filed SCC revision no. 9 of 2013, which has been dismissed by judgment dated 19.5.2015