Pravinanjay Kumar Jain vs Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner claims himself to be a landlord of the accommodation in dispute which is in possession of Raj Narain Sharma-respondent No. 3. The landlord appears to have given a notice of demand and demanded for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990 and ejectment terminating the tenancy of the respondent tenant from the shop in dispute, which was served on the respondent No. 3 by refusal.

The plaintiff petitioner thereafter filed a Suit No. 9 of 1990 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Firozabad. The case of the petitioner before the Court is that the suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. The rent of the shop in dispute was agreed between the parties and increased to Rs. 100 per month. But after 1989, the tenant failed to pay the rent and sent the rent by money order, which was not accepted by the landlord. As such, the deficient amount of Rs. 600 for the period from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990 is due against the respondent.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph No. 1 of the copy of plaint appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that the petitioner had claimed to be the landlord of the shop in dispute, which is as under:

;g fd oknh oknxzLr nqdku ftldh lhek, bl okni= ds vUr esa nh tk jgh gS dk ,dek= ekfyd o dkfct gS] ftles fd izfroknh dkQh vlsZ ls nqdku fookfnr dk fdjk;snkj eq0 80 :0 egkokj vykok djksa ds pyk vk jgk Fkk A

He submitted that the tenant denied the title in paragraph-1 of his written statement as under:

The defendant is a tenant/ occupant of the property detailed at the foot of the written statement, on a monthly rental of Rs. 80 (inclusive of taxes, etc.). Contrary allegations are absolutely wrong and are incorrect. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that how he has become owner/landlord of the property in dispute. Kindly see additional pleas.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court that once the title of the landlord is denied by the tenant, he no longer remains entitled to possess the accommodation in dispute. He further submits that the tenant claims to have deposited the entire arrears of rent with the courts below. However, the courts below have entirely failed to consider the fact that the due amount has not been paid and have wrongly come to the conclusion that the tenant is entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, without recording that whether the tenant had deposited the whole amount in the courts below on the first date of hearing or not.

Sri. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Ghoorey Lal v. Sheo Murti Gupta and Anr. 1995 (2) ARC and submits that the amount deposited u/s 20(4) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, has to be unconditional. He further relied upon the following statement of the tenant (Annexure-5) that the respondent is the tenant and Pravinanjay Kumar Jain, the petitioner is admitted to be the landlord of the shop.

fookfnr nqdku ds �ij esjs ikl nks dejs vkSj fdjk;s ij gS A ftuesa eS jgrk gwWa A budk fdjk;k firkth dks nsrk gwWaA jlhn izohut; ds uke ls nsrs gS A ml jlhn ij ekfyd tk;nkn esa izohut; fizaV gS A

and has urged that as the title of the petitioner as landlord has been disputed by the tenant, though he admitted the same in his statement before the court below, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in view of case of Ghoorey Lal (supra). Though, before this Court, Sri A.K. Gupta has conceded that the rent of the shop was Rs. 80 hence no dispute remains regarding rate of rent. However, the courts below should have seen that whether the tenant has deposited the entire arrears of rent on the first day of hearing @ Rs. 80 per month and what was the admitted rent and what dues on the said date remained unpaid and also the fact as to whether the tenants have deposited the amount regularly month-to-month or not?

In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent was never served with the notice of demand. As such, it cannot be said that he has refused to accept the notice. This argument has lost its relevance, in view of findings of fact by the court below that the respondent has deposited the entire amount before the first day of hearing.

Moreover from para 1 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent extracted above, it appears that he has not challenged the title of the petitioner but has only raised the question regarding clarification of title as to how the property has devolved upon the petitioner who claims to have stepped into shoes of the landlord, which may be on the basis of gift deed or Will etc. To challenge the title of the landlord is different from clarification in order to make payment to the correct person. This in my opinion would not amount to denial of title. This also appears to be correct as the courts below have given concurrent findings in the matter. The case relied upon by the petitioner is therefore not applicable as deposit made by the respondents on the first date of hearing cannot be said to be conditional in the facts and circumstances in this case.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.