RAKESH KUMAR S/O VISHUN LAL KANAUJIA AND 4 ORS. Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE AND DUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURT NO. 6

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants writ petition challenging the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Faizabad in SCC Revision No. 58 of 2010 whereby the revision filed by the opposite parties landlord was allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the suit was decreed with cost and the petitioner was directed to handover vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord within a period of two months.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shesh Verma learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6 and also perused the record.

(3.) The dispute relates to a part of the building bearing Municipal No. 6/8/64 (Old No. 547) situate in Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Faizabad which belonged to one Keshav Raj Singh. After the death of Keshav Raj Singh, his son Gaya Prasad became the owner and the landlord. The original tenant in the disputed premises was Vishun Lal Kanaujia who was a Washerman and his parents had migrated to India during 1947 riots and they settled at Faizabad. Vishun Lal Kanaujia was married in Mohalla Mahajani Tola Faizabad but after sometime he took the premises in dispute on rent from Sri Keshav Raj Singh for doing work of washerman. The rent was being received by Keshav Raj Singh and thereafter by Gaya Prasad. Later on, Gaya Prasad transferred the property to the respondent no. 2 and his brother Mahendra Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1975. They were aware of the fact that Vishun Lal was running a laundary in the premises under tenancy Vishun Lal died in the year 1988 and thereafter the petitioners and the respondents no.3 to 6 became joint tenants. The respondent no. 2, on 26.12.1990, served a notice upon the petitioners determining their tenancy on the ground that they had changed the user of the buildings from residential to commercial. However, even after issuing notice, the respondent no. 2 continued to receive the rent. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners and the respondents no. 3 to 6 in the year 1992 on the basis of notice dated 26.12.1980. The suit was contested by filing written statement and denying the change of user. The learned trial court came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that the notice issued by the respondent no. 2 determining tenancy stood waived because he continued to accept the rent even after termination of tenancy. It was also concluded that the building was let out for business purposes and there was no change of user. With these findings the suit was dismissed.