U.P. Khadi Gram Udyog Board, 1784 vs Madan Lal Agarwal

Prakash Krishna, J.—The above revision has been preferred u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1988 passed in SCC Suit No. 12 of 1986 whereby suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and actual eviction of the defendant-tenant has been decreed.

House No. 2085 new No. 1784 situate in Bahadurpura, Dampier Nagar, Mathura was owned by one Ashok Kumar Chhonkar who let it out to the defendant-applicant herein on monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. It was sold to one Rajendra Kumar through registered sale deed dated 6.7.1984 who sold it to the present plaintiff Madan Lal through sale deed dated 18.1.1986. Rajendra Kumar informed the defendant-tenant about the sale deed dated 18.1.1986 through a notice dated 5.5.1986 and the defendant-tenant was asked to pay the arrears of rent prior to 18.1.1986 to him and pay the future rent to the present plaintiff Madan Lal, the vendee. The defendant-tenant failed to pay the rent to the vendee who after serving the notice on defendant on 23.8.1986 filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages pendente lite and future.

The suit was contested on the pleas inter-alia that Ashok Kumar Chhonkar was Secretary of Chhonkar Vikas Udyog Mathura and had taken a loan of Rs. 65,000/- on various dates from U.P Gram Udyog for the purposes of Chhonkar Vikas Parishad. The house in dispute was mortgaged by him in favour of his creditor namely U.P Gram Udyog. The legality of execution of the sale deed by Ashok Kumar in favour of Rajendra Kumar who sold it to the plaintiff were disputed on the allegations that the transactions are sham transactions. In other words, the title of the plaintiff was disputed.

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following four issues:

Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

Whether the defendant has committed default, within the meaning of Section 20 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972?

Whether the suit is barred by Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887?

To what relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled?

It has been found under issue No. 1 that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and under issue No. 2, the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and is liable for ejectment. The issue No. 3 was decided by holding that the suit is not barred by Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887.

Challenging the findings recorded on issue nos. 1 & 3, the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant submits that in view of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the plaint should have been returned for presentation before the regular side of civil court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Budhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad and Others, .

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party on the other hand supports the impugned judgment.

Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The entire case of the defendant is that Ashok Kumar Chhonkar had mortgaged the house in question in favour of U.P Gram Udyog, hence the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The validity of execution of the sale deeds by Ashok Kumar Chhonkar and thereafter by Rajendra Kumar in favour of the plaintiff thus, were also disputed.

The submissions is that an intricate question of title was involved.

Considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, I find no substance therein. Even it is accepted that the house in question was mortgaged with U.P Gram Udyog, it would not mean that Ashok Kumar Chhonkar was debarred from executing the sale deed in respect thereof. If the house was mortgaged, mortgagors right was there which could be sold out. It is admitted that the defendant took the house in question on rent from Ashok Kumar Chhonkar, if that is so, the said relationship of landlord and tenant would not come to an end by mortgaging the house U.P Gram Udyog. Rajendra Kumar stood in the shoes of Ashok Kumar Chhonkar in view of the sale deed dated 6.7.1984 and the present plaintiff stood in the shoes of Rajendra Kumar in view of the sale deed dated 18.1.1986.

No question of title in view of facts as stated and pleaded by the defendant is involved in the case.

In Budhu Mal Ram Phal (Supra), it has been held that Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not make it obligatory on the court of small causes to invariably return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant. It has been laid down that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge, Small Causes in this behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. The discretion is left with the Judge Small Causes to return the plaint in order to do complete justice between the parties, in appropriate cases.

On the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that any question of title was involved. In this fact situation, the Court below has committed no illegality in holding that no question of title is involved in the suit and that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The findings recorded by the trial Judge are perfectly justified and calls for no interference in the present revision. It is based on cogent and relevant material on record and is essentially a finding of fact.

At the end, the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant prayed that reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation be granted.

The defendant-tenant is granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation up to 31st July, 2012 subject to the following conditions:

1.The defendant- tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rents and damages after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period up to 31st July, 2012 within a period of one month from today before trial court, at decreed rate.

Within the aforesaid period, the defendant-applicant shall file an undertaking on affidavit before the trial court that he will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 31st July, 2012 and shall hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff-landlord without creating any third party interest.

In case of default in compliance of any of the conditions stipulated above, the time granted shall stand vacated automatically.

Any other point was not pressed. The revision is dismissed with cost.