KAMLA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 21st April, 1980 passed by the revisional Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (Annexure-A to the writ petition).

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they are owners and landlord of house No. 28 (old), corresponding to No. 43 (New), Karanpur Allengani, Allahabad wherein respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were tenants on a rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The said respondents fell in arrears of rent since March 1, 1960 to 31.8.1969 amounting to Rs. 1710/-, a notice of demand dated 12.9.1969 was sent but the said respondents did not pay the rent within the stipulated period of thirty days and did not hand over vacant possession, therefore, the present suit was filed for ejectment and recovery of damages for use and occupation. The suit was contested by respondent Nos. 2 to 7 mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In an earlier suit (suit No. 708 of 1950) a compromise was arrived at. It is not in dispute that the said compromise became decree of the Court. It was further alleged that in term of the compromise since no payment of rent was made as stipulated therein, an application was made in the execution, before the executing Court and in pursuance to the same a symbolic possession was obtained on 22.4.1953. It was then urged that actually the answering respondents continued. It is on these facts inference was sought to be drawn that possession of the respondent became adverse to the petitioner. In any case, it was urged that the petitioners did got them evicted within the period of limitation, therefore, by virtue of passage of time the said respondents matured their title. In view of this petitioner could not be said to be the landlord of the disputed premises.

(3.) THE Judge Small Causes Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence recorded the finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were in arrears of rent and as such were liable for ejectment. The notice served on the respondents was held to be valid and thus the suit of the petitioner was decreed for ejectment of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and for recovery of Rs. 555/- and also for pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondents 2 to 7 filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, before the District Judge, Allahabad. The District Judge allowed the revision filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 7. It came to the conclusion that since petitioner obtained actual possession in the execution of the decree in the aforesaid suit and as a matter of fact respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were not evicted within the stipulated period thereafter, their possession became adverse to the petitioner, and the right, if any, of the petitioner ceased by virtue of this adverse possession. The petitioners being aggrieved as against the said order, have filed the present writ petition challenging the same.