SUDARSHAN JAIN Vs. TEJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the peti tioners-tenants and Sri Rajeev Joshi, learned Counsel, who appeared on behalf of landlord-respondent No. 1 through caveat.

(2.) THIS is tenant writ petition. Smt. Surajmukhi, mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed suit for eviction against grandfather of tenants-petitioners and proforma respondents, Moti Ram the original tenant in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 1983. Both, original plaintiff and original defendant died during pendency of suit. Plaintiff was survived and substituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant was survived and substituted by Devi Das Jain father of both the petitioners, and proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 11. Thereafter, Devi Das also died and was substituted by the petitioners.

(3.) SUIT was filed under section 20 (2) (b), (c) and (e) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and it was also alleged that since August, 1980, rent had not been paid. J. S. C. C. /iind A. C. J. , Senior Division, Muzzaffarnagar decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 24. 10. 1997. Against the said judgment and decree, S. C. C. Revision No. 511 of 1997 was filed. In the revision, which was filed by Devi Das, an application was moved by Devi Das on 31. 1. 1998 for getting the revision dismissed as not pressed. Revision was accord ingly dismissed as not pressed by District Judge, Muzzafarnagar on 18. 4. 1998. It is alleged in Para-9 of the writ petition that the said application was moved by the father of the petitioners under the influence and assurance given by respondent No. 1 that in case revision was withdrawn, tenancy would be regular ized.