VIJAY KUMAR BHUTANI Vs. SMT MOHINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

(2.) Present revision has been filed challenging the impugned judgement and order decree dated 7.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Suit No. 1/2009 (Mohini Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhutani and others).

(3.) By the impugned judgement and decree, SCC suit filed by the landlord-plaintiff (respondent herein) was allowed by the Court below. The suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff is landlord of house no. 790, Gali No. 12 (old no. 5/4) Gandhi Colony, Muzaffar Nagar and the defendant-Vijay Kumar Bhutani is tenant in the aforesaid house consisting of three rooms, store, kitchen, bathroom, shed and courtyard at the rate of Rs. 3,000.00 per month plus taxes and as such, provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case. A registered notice dated 7.2008 was sent through counsel, which was received by the defendant on 5.7.2008 and incorrect reply dated 4.8.2008 was given by him denying title of the landlord and claimed himself to be the owner of the property. It was further highlighted that in the earlier notice description of the property was not given properly, therefore, a fresh registered notice dated 9.8.2008 was given to the defendant, which was received by him 18.2008 and was incorrectly replied by tenant. Thereafter, he has not tendered any rent and arrears were claimed from 2.1.2006. The suit was contested by the tenant-defendant denying title of the landlord and claimed himself to be the owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession. It was claimed that earlier in the northern portion one Veer Prakash was in possession and in southern portion one Kalaraji was in possession, who vacated the portion in June, 1995. The defendant was the tenant in the house of one Sardar Dhawan at a distance of one house and when he was pressurized to vacate the premises immediately, the defendant, under compulsion, took over the possession of the property and shifted there. The defendant came in possession on 15.9.1995 and when it was objected to by Veer Prakash, he denied the same and on this Veer Prakash called his family members including the landlord and tried to dispossess him but his possession could not be disturbed and therefore, he is in adverse possession of the disputed property since 15.9.1995 and since, it is last more than 12 years his possession has not been disturbed and no proceedings to dispossess him have been undertaken, therefore, he has become owner of the property in question on the basis of adverse possession. It was further alleged that in such view of the matter the suit was barred by Sec. 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. Large number of documents were filed before the trial Court by the landlord-plaintiff (opposite party herein) and in the shape of oral evidence plaintiff-Rajkumar was examined as PW1 and Jagdish Bindra was examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses, namely, Gurmeet Kaur and Kulbhushan also filed their affidavits. The defendant also filed several documentary evidences and was examined himself as DW-1 and Mohd. Abid was examined as DW-2 and affidavit of Yogesh Gupta was filed by the defendant.