ANEES AHMAD Vs. SHAMSHAD JAHAN ISHRAT MAHBOOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 26.3.2009 and 8.5.2008 passed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3 respectively whereby the application under Section 21 of Act no. 13 of 1972 was allowed and the appeal filed against the said order, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no.1 is not the land lady of the house in dispute, hence she could not move an application under Section 21 of Act no. 13 of 1972. He also argues that the rent was being paid by the petitioner to respondent no.1 Smt. Shamshad Jahan just because the original deceased land lady Sadiya Begum had, before her death, directed the petitioner to pay the rent to Smt. Shamshad Jahan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in 1996(2) Allahabad Rent Cases, 14 Smt. Ved Rani Diwan and another Vs. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, 1978 Allahabad Rent Cases 394 Prem Chandra Pachit Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others and 1983(2) Allahabad Rent Cases 143, Smt. Sughra Begum Vs. Sri Ram and others. He also argues that the definition of landlord given in clause (j) of Section 3 of the Act means only a person to whom the rent is payable and not the person to whom rent is actually paid. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 argues that the respondent no.1 is the grand daughter of the original land lady Smt. Sadiya Begum and after the death of Sadiya Begum, respondent no.1 inherited the property left by Smt. Sadiya Begum. He also argues that the name of respondent no.1 has been mutated in the municipal records and that there is no other claimant to claim the property. He also argues that the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable on the point that in the cited rulings the rent was paid to a person different from the owner(alive) of the property, therefore the person to whom the rent was paid, acted as agent of the landlord. He states that in the case in hand, there is no other persons having better title or claiming himself or herself as the owner of the property. It is not disputed that in the case in hand there is no other person having better title or claiming title over the house in dispute. It is further not disputed that the house in question has already been mutated in the name of respondent no.1. Over and above all, the petitioner is paying the rent to respondent no.1 hence, he is estopped from challenging the relationship of tenant and the landlord. The writ petition has thus, no force. It is accordingly dismissed.