ANUPAM CHAKRAVORTY Vs. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court dated 1.5.1995. decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 20.1.1999, affirming the said Judgment in revision.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents filed Suit No. 274 of 1981 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and other defendants on the ground that the petitioner had sublet the disputed accommodation and made material alterations in the building. The trial court decreed the suit on 1.5.1995. The petitioner preferred a revision and it has been dismissed by the revisional court on 20.1.1999. The version of plain tiff-respondent No. 3 was that the petitioner had inducted Sri. J.N. Mehrotra and Smt. Kamla Chakravorty as partners of the firm M/s. Chakravorty and Company in the year 1972. He again inducted Sri J.L. Tandon as partner in the year 1975 without the landlord's consent and knowledge. On 27.5.1976 Ritam Chakravorty and Smt. Prakash Rani Mehrotra were inducted as partners. The first floor portion of the house was sublet to Sri Salil Bhattacharya and Nilotpal Bhattacharya on 1.4.1989 who were running a firm styled as M/s. Potters and Company. The eastern portion of the first floor was sublet on 26.5.1976 to firm M/S. C.T.D, comprising of partner P. N. Dutta and J. S. Tandon and others and on 5.4.1977 in this partnership R.K. Kapur and Ritam Chakravorty were inducted as partners. The Judge. Small Causes Court believed the version of the plaintiff and found that the tenant petitioner having sublet the accommodation was liable for eviction.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord had given the notice terminating the tenancy on 1.9.1980 on the ground of subletting. The suit was filed in the year 1981 but subletting was done three years prior to the service of notice terminating the tenancy and, therefore, it was barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This submission is based on the ground that the bar for filing a suit against the tenant is provided under Section 20, of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of betting. Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 and under this Section, various grounds have been given on the basis of which a tenant can be evicted. Section 20 (2) e), provides that if the tenant has sublet in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be of the old Act the whole or any part of the building, he shall be liable for eviction. The subletting is cause of action for filing the suit against him. There is no provision under the Limitation Act, 1963, providing for limitation in filing suit against a tenant when a ground for eviction exists under a Statute. It is contended that the residuary Article 113 should be taken as the limitation for filing the suit which provides that any suit for which no period of limitation is prescribed elsewhere in the Schedule, it can be filed within three years when the right to sue accrues.