PREM NARAIN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Petitioner filed SCC Suit No. 58 of 1984 against respondent No. 1 before JSCC, Jhansi. In the plaint of the suit it was stated that plaintiffs were landlords and defendant was their tenant in the house situate in Hata No 140 inside Orcha Gate Jhansi set the Tent of Rs. 1 per month, since June, 1959 and he had not paid the rent since 1-4-1982 inspite of notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent dated 13- 3- 1984 served upon him on 17r3-1984. Defendant filed written statement denying the title of the landlord and asserting his own owner ship. Defendant also filed an application under Section 23 of Provincial Causes Courts Act (PSCC Act in short) in return of plaint for filing before competent Civil Court. The said application was rejected on 19-11-1988. Thereafter, suit was decreed by JSCC, Jhansi on 18-2-1993. Suit was decree for recovery of ar rears of rent and eviction. Trial Court found that plaintiff had proved owner ship and land lordship and the amount deposited by the tenant for seeking benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P Act No, 13 to 1972 was insufficient. Against the said judgment and decree tenant filed civil revision (ought to be SCC Revision) No. 40 of 1993. Additional District Judge/special Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 16-11-1995 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Triai Court. The order dated 19-11-1988 reject ing application of the tenant under Sec tion 23 of PSCC Act passed by the Trial Court was also set aside Revisional Court directed for return of plaint under Section 23 PSCC Act and for the said pur pose directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 25-11-1995. The said order of Revisional Court dated 16-11-1995 has been challenged by the landlord through this writ petition.

(2.) THE Trial Court for recording the finding of ownership/landlordship in favour of the plaintiffs placed reliance, upon the following evidence facts : (1) Entry of ownership in favour of the plaintiffs in the municipal records. (2) Judgment and decree passed by JSCC/munsif in SCC Suit No. 89 of 1983 filed by the, same landlords against another tenant Gulab in respect of adjoining portion. Trial Court held that even though the said suit had been dismissed however under issue No. 2 plaintiffs had been held to be owners landlords of the said house and they had been permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant in the suit. THE said suit was filed in respect of an accommoda tion, which was part of Hate No. 240 of which accommodation in dispute in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition is also a part. (3) Rent deed Exhibit-1 filed by the landlord.

(3.) REVISIONAL Court also took into consideration a litigation in respect of third accommodation of the same Ahata being No. 240 which was initiated by the petitioners against Bhagoo tenant of the said accommodation and mentioned in its judgment that on the application of Smt. Bhagoo the tenant of the said accommodation, the Trial Court had directed return of plaint under Section 23, PSCC Act through order dated 18-12-1989. Number of the said suit was SCC Suit No. 193 of 1983, Prem Narain v. Smt. Bhagoo, 2005 (58)' ALR 650 (SC):2005 (26) AIC 84 (SC ). In respect of the said litigation judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 34586 of 1992, Bhagoo v. District Judge and Ors. , dated 18-9-1992 has been filed. Through the said writ petition Smt. Bhagoo had challenged eviction-decree as confirmed by the REVISIONAL Court. While dismissing her writ petition this Court observed that the amount deposited by Smt. Bhagoo under Sec tion 20 (4) of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 was short hence decree for eviction was rightly passed.