LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-500

BANKE LAL AGRAWAL Vs. MITHILESH BANSAL AND ORS.

Decided On November 06, 2019
Banke Lal Agrawal Appellant
V/S
Mithilesh Bansal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Ingredients of denial of title by a tenant so as to attract Sec. 20(2)(f) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, is the main question involved in the present petition."

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed house situate at Azad Chowk, Main Bazar, Qasba Jevar, District Gautam Budh Nagar was originally owned by Sri Mahesh Chand father of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal resident of Qasba Palwal, District Faridabad (Haryana), which was purchased by Sri Mahesh Chand by a registered sale deed dtd. 4/8/1966 from one Sri Babu Ram and another. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the purchase of the house was benami. That apart, in her marriage on 3/2/1981, her father Mahesh Chand had gifted the house to her which she accepted. But despite this fact, her father Mahesh Chand entered into some rent deed in his own name. Therefore, she filed declaratory Suit No.28 of 1984 (Smt. Mithilesh Bansal vs. Mahesh Chand and another) which was decreed by judgment dtd. 9/4/1984 and decree dtd. 21/5/1984 under Order VIII Rule 10, C.P.C. on the basis of compromise. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 became owner and landlord of the disputed shop.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the defendant-tenant sent a notice dtd. 28/1/1985 through counsel Mohd. Iqbal Khan to the plaintiff s father Mahesh Chand by registered post stating that the rent from 1/4/1983 is not being accepted so as to cause harassment and, therefore, notice is being given to accept the rent and issue a rent receipt. According to the plaintiff, this notice was replied by her father Mahesh Chand to the defendant-tenant by reply dtd. 12/3/1985 followed by letter dtd. 12/3/1985 by registered post whereby Mahesh Chand stated that it was earlier notified and made clear to the defendant-tenant that the shop is now owned by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, Smt. Mithilesh Bansal in view of the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Khurja in O.S. No.28 of 1984 and, therefore, the previous and future rent be paid to the owner and landlady Smt. Mithilesh Bansal.