SHIV SAGAR SINGH TOMAR Vs. SUKHRANI PANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner-tenant from house No, 328/2, Premganj, Sirpir Bazar, Jhansi in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Jhansi. It was said that the rate of rent for the premises was Rs. 120 per month and the tenant-petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of rent since 1-4-83. Notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 26-7-87 was said to have been served on 28-7-86 by refusal, hence suit upto the date of filing of the plaint and damages @ 20 per day was claimed. The Judge, Small Causes Court dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 15-1-92.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court, the petitioner filed his written statement and pleaded that he is not tenant of the accommodation instead his wife Smt. Janki Devi is the tenant paying rent @ Rs. 30 per month. It is said that she had been paying the rent to the respondent-landlord regularly but no receipt was given. Since the landlord had declined to give receipt for the rent received, the rent of the accommodation was deposited under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Munsif Court. The petitioner's wife Smt. Janki Devi had sent a notice also to the landlord dated 28-4-86 in the reply sent by the landlord to the notice sent by the petitioner's wife Smt. Janki Devi, landlord had not claimed any arrears of rent or stated anything about the termination of the tenancy by affixation of the notice.

(3.) SO far issue about the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant was considered by the trial court, after appreciation of evidence and perusing the documentary evidence, expert evidence, the trial court found as a fact that the alleged rent deed said to be executed by the petitioner was not proved to be a rent deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the land lord, and evidence of a witness in the said rent deed as attesting witness namely, of Bablu Ram was found to be wrong and fictitious. The petitioner had set up his case from the very beginning and had denied the signatures or execution of any rent deed. The landlord had not examined the main witness of the rent deed nor it has been proved to be duly executed by the petitioner.