RAM KALI Vs. RAM KISHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30-7-2005 passed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the first appeal of the appellant and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the premises in question alongwith a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. A piece of land in dispute sought to have been given to the defendants- appellants by Late Smt. Hero Devi and one Sita Ram on monthly rent regarding which a lease-deed was executed. That piece of land was subsequently transferred by Smt. Hero Devi and others in plaintiff's favour through registered sale-deed dated 24-1- 1980. An intimation of this transfer of the disputed property was given by the vendees plaintiffs to the defendants and instructed them to pay the rent to them instead of Smt. Hero Devi and others. No heed on this request of the plaintiff was given by the defendants. A notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was given by the plaintiffs to the defendant but still the premises was not vacated nor the arrears of rent were paid. Consequently a suit for eviction on the small causes side of the Court was instituted by the plaintiffs but that suit was held to be not cognizable by the Court on small causes and the plaint was returned for proper presentation before a regular Court. As a result this suit was presented before the regular Court. THE validity of the notice was challenged in the written statement and it was also disputed by the defendants that they were in arrears of payment of rent. THEy also alleged that since the defendant had put in tin shade in the suit land the Provisions of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are applicable to the suit property and the suit as such is cognizable by the Court of Judge Small Causes. THE defendants also took the plea that only an area of 64 square yard was transferred by Smt. Hero Devi to the plaintiffs and, therefore, this suit for eviction from other 100 square yard of land could not be legally decreed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire material available on record.