SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY Vs. SUKHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Sukhoo the landlord filed suit for eviction (SCC suit No. 3 of 1985) as well as release ap plication under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Rent case No. 25 of 1987 ). In both the cases Sheo Moorat Pandey (S. M. Pandey) and Shyam Narain Pandey (S. N. Pandey) were impleaded as defendants/opposite par ties No. 1 and 2. Suit for eviction was decreed on 17-7-1989 by JSCC/. X A. D. J. , Varanasi giving rise to the above revision by Shyam Narain Pandey. Release application was rejected giving rise to the above writ petition by landlord Sukhoo. During pendency of cases Shyam Narain Pandey had died and was substituted by his legal repre sentatives. Building in dispute contain ing one room, latrine and courtyard on the ground floor and one room on the first floor was admittedly allotted to Sheo Moorat Pandey. Another room en the first floor was also later on taken on rent by the tenant from the previous land- lord/owner. Sukhoo purchase the building in dispute on 1-9-1981 (sale-deed dated 1 -9-1981 was registered on 21 -9-1981 ). According to Sukhoo the al lotment was made in 1963 in favour of Sheo Moorat Pandey on the rent of Rs. 78 per month, however, after giving another room to Sheo Moorat Pandey by the previous owner rent was en hanced to Rs. 100 per month and that Rs. 10 were also payable by Sheo Moorat Pandey as water tax hence total liability was of Rs. 110 per month. Suk hoo in the plaint of the suit also pleaded that Sheo Moorat Pandey paid rent for the months of September, October and November, 1981, however, thereafter no rent was paid. It was also pleaded in the plaint that S. M. Pandey had sub-let the accommodation in dispute to S. N. Pan dey. Suit was filed after serving notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent upon Sheo Moorat Pandey.

(2.) S. M. Pandey allottee filed written statement completely admitting the case of the landlord. He admitted that he had paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per month of the plaintiff till Novem ber, 1981 and thereafter he had sub-let the accommodation in dispute to S. N. Pandey.

(3.) TRIAL Court also found that it was not proved that S. N. Pandey had paid rent to the previous owner or to the plaintiff.