BHAGWAN DAS Vs. LALA PRATAP BHAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenants' Writ Petition. It arises out of S. C. C. Suit No. 66 of 1982 filed by the respondent- landlords for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and eviction against Smt. Manju Devi (i. e. the predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners ). The said suit has been decreed on 9th February, 1998 by the Judge Small Causes Court and the said decree has been affirmed in S. C. C. Revision No. 11 of 1998.

(2.) SRI M. D. Mishra, Advocate, in support of the Writ Petition has submitted that the finding of the Courts below that a sum of Rs. 1,300/- was not advanced by the tenants as advance money to the landlord is incorrect and if the said finding is recorded in favour of the petitioners, there would no default in payment of rent. The burden of proof of payment of rent lies on the landlords respondent and it has been wrongly placed upon the tenant. Lastly, he has submitted that the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages was not maintainable before the Court of Judge Small Causes in view of Section 14 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents landlord submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are findings of fact and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LASTLY, it was urged that the petitioners are old tenants and as such there tenancy stood regularized under Section 14 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said point was not urged before the Courts below and has been raised for the first time through an Amendment Application No. 50305 of 2007. The Suit giving rise to the present Writ Petition was filed treating the defendant as tenant. The question of regularization of tenancy was not at all in issue before the Courts below. I see no application of Section 14 of the Act in the present case. Section 14 of the Act does not bar the institution of a suit giving rise to the present Writ Petition in any manner. Section 20 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 bars suit for eviction of tenant except on the grounds specified therein vide sub-section (2 ). One of the grounds for eviction is that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. The findings recorded by the both the Courts below is that the petitioners-tenant was in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice of demand. In this view of the matter, the said argument is also not valid.