Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3459 (ALL)

SHREE RAM GOYAL v. JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

2009-11-10

RAKESH SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT RAKESH SHARMA, J.-Since in both the revisions common controversy is involved, therefore both are being decided by a common order, which is being passed in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2005. 2. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Srivastava for the revisionists Shri Ram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal and Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Agarwal for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2005 and Shri Manu Khare learned Counsel for the revisionist Shanti Prakash Goyal and Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Agarwal for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009 3. This is a tenants' Civil Revision preferred under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Allahabad in Suit No. 12 of 1999 jitendra Kumar Gupta v. Shanti Prakash Goyal and two others, exercising powers as Judge, Small Causes Court allowing the suit filed by the landlord, respondent No. 1 herein. 4. The Judge Small Causes Court has decreed the suit and directed to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff (respondent herein) for the period when the rent had remain unpaid and the revisionist-tenants has been ordered to be evicted from the premises due to default in making payment of rent. The revisionist-tenants were directed to handover their possession over the rented premises within 30 days. The landlord has further sought a decree for ejectment of the tenant-defendants (revisionists herein) from the ground floor of House No. 104, Zero Road (K.P. Kakkar Road) in Allahabad city. The plaintiff Jintendra Kumar Gupta (respondent No 1) claimed himself to be owner-landlord of the aforesaid building situate at Zero Road, Allahabad city. Initially, the ground floor portion of the premises was rented out to Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, father of tenants-revisionists, who was carrying out his private practice from the medical pharmacy. After the death of Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, the original tenant, his three sons namely Shanti Prakash Goyal, Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal became co-tennats of the pharmacy. Initially the monthly rent for the rented portion of the building was Rs.300/- per month upto December, 1997. After the death of Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, the original tenant, his three sons namely Shanti Prakash Goyal, Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal became co-tennats of the pharmacy. Initially the monthly rent for the rented portion of the building was Rs.300/- per month upto December, 1997. As per the landlord-respondent No.1 on account of installation of various other business activities, the rent was mutually enhanced from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 3600/- per month w.e.f. 1st January, 1998. The defendants-tenants (revisionists herein) were carrying out business in the name of Goyal Pharmacy. The X-ray machine plant was installed and other medical consultancy activities were going on from the premises. The revisionists paid rent upto 31.12.1998, sometimes in cash and sometimes through an account payee cheques, receipts for which were issued by the landlord. Later on the tenant (revisionists) defaulted in making payment of the rent from 1st January, 1998 to 31st May, 1999. They were served with legal notice dated 19.6.1999 as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The arrears of rent was demanded from the tenants by the said notice dated 19.6.1999. The landlord had terminated the tenancy of the tenants (revisionists herein) on the expiry of 30 days period stipulated. According to the landlord, notice dated 19.6.1999 was personally served upon the tenants (revisionist herein), but instead of paying due rent to the landlord, they made an illegitimate claim and disputed the arrears of rent in an illegal manner and. thus rendered themselves liable to ejectment. Since the rent of the premises in suit was Rs. 3600/- per month, as such provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply in the present case. The landlord has indicated details of payment made by the tenants in para 9 of the plaint. Specific dates when the rent was tendered by the tenants to the landlord, through cash or cheques were indicated. The number of cheques, details of receipts etc. had been given. It was displayed before the Judge, Small Causes Court that Rs. 3600/- per month was paid by the tenants to the landlord. One cheque was bounced and thereafter a fresh cheque issued by the tenants to the landlord. 5. A written submission was filed by the tenants (revisionists herein) denying the contentions putforth in the suit. According to the tenants, the rent of the building was Rs. 3600/- per month was paid by the tenants to the landlord. One cheque was bounced and thereafter a fresh cheque issued by the tenants to the landlord. 5. A written submission was filed by the tenants (revisionists herein) denying the contentions putforth in the suit. According to the tenants, the rent of the building was Rs. 300/- per month only and as a matter of fact no rent at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month was paid to the landlord. It was pleaded before the J.S.C.C. that earlier also attempts were made by the landlord to evict the tenants but when they failed to do so, the suit was filed. Initially the rent was Rs. 80/- per month + water tax and other dues. However, later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month. According to the tenants (revisionists herein) an assurance in writing was given by the landlord on 8.4.1989 that there would not be any further enhancement of rent till 31st March, 2007. It was further pleaded in the written statement that after the death of the father i.e., Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal of the tenants (revisionists herein), the tenancy of the building in question devolved upon the tenants and ever since then all the affairs of the tenancy throughout were being managed by Shreeram Goyal, one of the said three brothers with the consent of other two co-tenants i.e., Shanti Prakash Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishan Goyal. He alone used to make the payment of rent through cash or cheques on behalf of all the concerned co-tenants. The rent receipts used to be issued only in the name of Shreeram Goyal except a single receipt, which was issued for the month of August 1990 to December, 1990 in the name of Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal. The question of payment of rent by any other tenants like Shanti Prakash Goyal did not arise. The affairs of tenancy were being looked by Shreeram Goyal alone. 6. It has been alleged in the additional pleas that after incorporation of the provisions of section 2 (i) (g) in the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, in order to secure the ejectment of the tenants tried to somehow or the other repeatedly tried to issue rent receipts @ Rs. 25,000/- per month and asked Shreeram Goyal, who was managing the affairs of tenancy to sign the counterfoil. 25,000/- per month and asked Shreeram Goyal, who was managing the affairs of tenancy to sign the counterfoil. However, he make payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. 7. In the present case the landlord has pleaded that Rs. 3600/- per month was paid by Shanti Prakash Goyal, one of the tenants' real brother to the landlord' through cash and cheques. This has been explained by Shreeram Goyal in the written statement that due to weak mental status of Shanti Prakash Goyal and taking undue advantage of his mental status, the plaintiff (respondent No.1) has got a forged power-of-attorney executed on behalf of other brothers in favour of the landlord. On the basis of power-of-attorney agreement, the landlord wanted to get the building in question released under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, but nothing could be obtained. A pleas has been taken in the written statement that Shanti Prakash Goyal had remained indebted life long and he had taken some loan from the landlord, which appears to have been re-paid by Shanti Prakash Goyal through cash or cheques. In view of the agreement in writing no enhancement of rent since 31st March, 2007 could be claimed. If Shanti Prakash Goyal had signed some cheques and made payment at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month (defined as rent by the landlord @ 3600/- per month), the same was repayment towards security and loan for which the other two brothers (co-tenants) were not responsible. Various exemplars have been cited in para Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the written statement to submit before the Court that the other two brothers (co-tenants) in the building in question had no concerned with the activities of Shanti Prakash Goyal (third tenant). The cheques issued on various dates from 27.11.1998 to 16.1.1999 were not in respect of payment of rent. On one occasion he (Shanti Prakash Goyal) had abandoned his home and family, however, later on it was found that he had established medical practice in Dalmau, Rai Bareili. The tenants had never defaulted in making payment of rent. On refusal of the landlord in accepting the rent, the same was deposited in the Court under section 13 (1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The tenants had deposited the rent regularly. 8. In the J.S.C.C. following issues were framed on 4.1.2001. The tenants had never defaulted in making payment of rent. On refusal of the landlord in accepting the rent, the same was deposited in the Court under section 13 (1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The tenants had deposited the rent regularly. 8. In the J.S.C.C. following issues were framed on 4.1.2001. (a) Kya Vivadit parishar ka kiraya Rs. 300/- pratimah hai athwa Rs. 3600/- pratimah hai? (b) Kya Vivadit Parishar Act No. 13 sun 1972 ke antargat nahin aata? (c) Kya prativadigarh dwara kirayen ki adayagi mein chuk ki gayi hai? (d) kya notice dinak 19.6.1999 vaidh hai? (e) Vadi ka anutosh? 9. Several documents, agreements etc. were filed. Oral testimony of the witnesses were recorded by the Court and the parties were allowed opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The statement of witnesses have been brought on record before this Court. The Court has decided most of the issues against the tenants (revisionists herein) and decreed the suit, order of eviction of the tenants vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2004. This Court had passed a conditional interim order on 18.1.2005 directing the revisionists to deposit the entire decretal amount within two weeks. 10. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has highlighted the aforementioned facts and legal submissions before the Court. According to the learned Counsel for the revisionists, initially the father of the Revisionists No.1 and 2 and that of respondent No.2 was inducted as tenants. Later on the rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month + water tax. However, on the basis of the written assurance dated 18.4.1989, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, which was not to be enhanced upto December 31.3.2007. After the death of Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, Shreeram Goyal used to make payment through cash or cheques and receipts were issued in his name. The tenants never defaulted in making payment of rent @ Rs 3600/- per month as rent and Revisionists are not responsible for the activities of their brother Shanti Prakash Goyal, who was of a weak mental status. If Shanti Prakash Goyal had made payment through cash or cheques at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month, the same was not towards rent and it was repayment of loan, which appears to have been taken by him from the landlord Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta. If Shanti Prakash Goyal had made payment through cash or cheques at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month, the same was not towards rent and it was repayment of loan, which appears to have been taken by him from the landlord Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta. The findings recorded by the J.S.C.C. are wholly erroneous. The Court has not taken note of the pleas taken in various paras of the written statement. Revisionists Shreeram Goyal was looking the affair of the tenancy and he alone used to make payment of rent. The findings recorded in this regard are wholly perverse and illegal. The findings of the Court below that Shri V.N. Pandey, Manager of 'The Benares State Bank' had proved that the cheques were encashed (not regarding payment of rent). The tenants had proved the agreement executed on 18.4.1989 in respect of enhancement of rent to Rs. 300/per month. 11. The Court below has committed error of law by disbelieving the report of the handwriting Expert and substituting its own opinion. The burden of providing the fact that Shanti Prakash Goyal was residing at Dalmau, Rai Bareili could not be fastened on the Revisionists. The Court has erred in holding that D.Ws. 1 and 2 had made false submissions to avoid payment of rent @ Rs. 3600/- per month. The revisionists had demonstrated on the basis of pleadings and other materials that infact Shanti Prakash Goyal had made repayment of loan or debt and not make payment of Rs. 3600/- as rent. No counterfoil receipt was signed by the revisionists. After death of Dr. Keshav Prakash Goyal, the original tenant Shanti Prakash Goyal had no right or concerned with the tenements nor he was in possession of any part of the premises. Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishan Goyal were in exclusive possession of the premises. The learned Counsel for the revisionists have placed reliance upon Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmad and others 1 1997 (30) ALR 189 (SC).in Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1984 decided on 20th February, 1997 in support of his submissions. 12. Shri Manu Khare, learned Counsel for the other Revisionist has put in appearance in Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009 preferred by Shanti Prakash Goyal, against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2009 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Misc. 12. Shri Manu Khare, learned Counsel for the other Revisionist has put in appearance in Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009 preferred by Shanti Prakash Goyal, against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2009 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2006, (Shanti Prakash Goyal v. Jintendra Kumar Gupta and others), by which the learned Court below has rejected the Application No. 5-C' filed under section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 13. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by Shanti Prakash Goyal in the year 2006 challenging the order dated 22.5.2005 and judgment and decree dated 24.1.2004. According to him the judgment and decree impugned in the above revision was ex-parte and since he did not receive any summon he could not approach the J.S.C.C. and pursue the case to defend himself. He has infact taken the same pleas that he was not residing at Allahabad and had taken loan from the landlord. This loan was repaid by him at the relevant time. Various explanations were given as to what had prevented in not approaching the Court in time. He was unwell. The application was opposed by the landlord on the ground that the J.S.C.C.'S. Summon was published in the local newspaper. Shanti Prakash Goyal had not come with clean hand before the Court. He had tried to set up a fabricated false case before the Court. 10 Decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court were cited before the Small Causes Court. The Court has held that the written statement was filed by the tenants (all the three brothers). Shanti Prakash Goyal's son was involved in the same business, run by his two brothers i.e., Shreeram Goyal and Gopal Krishna Goyal, son is staying at Allahabad. The notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act was received by applicant. The application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was filed with the calculated motive and design. The theory of surrendering tenancy in the year 1992-93, fabricating medical certificate, lodging F.I.R. by his wife regarding his long absence from Allahabad city was found to be part of the same story's transactions. The Court has held that all the three brothers had manufactured a story in their pleadings to defeat the efforts of the landlord in getting his premises vacated. The Court has held that all the three brothers had manufactured a story in their pleadings to defeat the efforts of the landlord in getting his premises vacated. The J.S.C.C. had rejected the application submitted by Shri Shanti Prakash Goyal vide order dated 21.1.2009. This revision has also been dealt with the present revision and the parties will be bound by the conclusion of the case. 14. Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate has put forth his submissions on behalf of the landlord. He has relied upon the pleas taken in the plaint and submissions made before the J.S.C.C. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent No.1 has laid stress that intact the rent for the period from January, 1998 to December 1998 for almost one year had been paid to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month. The rent was deposited through, ash and cheques for which receipts were issued. Signatures were also taken on the counterfoil. The learned Trial Court has considered the entire evidence adduced by both the parties and has come to the conclusion by passing the judgment which is unassailable. The suit was filed after serving a proper notice on the tenants. It was duly served upon all the three brothers-tenants i.e., Shanti Prakash Goyal, Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal. Upon which the tenancy had devolved on the death of their father Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal. In support of his submissions and in defending the order passed by J.S.C.C., learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on various judgments. 1. Jaidev Misra v. District Judge, Faizabad 1 1. 1998 (1) ARC 354. 2. Ajit Savant Majagavai v. State of Karnataka 2 2. 1997 (7) SCC 110 . 3. Santosh Singh Bhadauriya v. Ramesh Chandra Nigam 3 3. 1997 (30) ALR 346. 4. Hari Shankar v. Girdhari Lal 4 4. 1963 AIR SC 698. 5. Umardaraj v. Furkan Ahmad 5 5. 2005 (59) ALR 371. 6. Ram Prasad v. Panna Lal 6 6. 1997 (31) ALR 114. 7. Kailash Chandra v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaim7 7 1999 (1) AWC 302 = 1998 (2) ARC 451 . 8. Mewa Lal v. A.D.J. Court No.5, Fatehpur 8 8. 2005 (59) ALR 7. 15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Here is a revision preferred under section 25 of Small Causes Courts Act. Kailash Chandra v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaim7 7 1999 (1) AWC 302 = 1998 (2) ARC 451 . 8. Mewa Lal v. A.D.J. Court No.5, Fatehpur 8 8. 2005 (59) ALR 7. 15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Here is a revision preferred under section 25 of Small Causes Courts Act. This Court while deciding a revision under section 25 of the said Act has to satisfy itself that the Trial Court's decree or order is according to law or not. This Court has no jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence for itself. This provision confers the supervisory and not the appellate power. The record has been called for to see that the decree is according to law or not. 17. In the present case at the outset it may be appreciated that after the death of original tenant i.e., Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal on 15.12.1990 his three sons i.e., Shanti Prakash Goyal, Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal had entered into a tenancy. The tenancy had devolved on three of them and they had become co-tenants. Interestingly, this has been admitted by the revisionists in their written statement. For convenience, para 2 of the plaint is quoted below: "That the defendants occupy a portion on ground floor of the said building on Rs. 3600/- per month rent." In the written statement this plea has been admitted by the tenants-revisionists as follows :-"In reply to para 2 of the plaint, the occupation of the defendant-tenants as joint tenant is admitted." After this admission by the revisionists that the three brothers were co-tenants in the rented premises, no turn around can be taken later on, to say that Shanti Prakash Goyal had surrendered the tenancy and he was not concerned with the tenancy. 18. This Court has also taken note of the findings recorded by the J.S.C.C. in respect of issue No. 1 and the statements of witnesses recorded before the J.S.C.C. The Court had found that Shanti Prakash Goyal was in sound mental health. The report submitted by the George Town Police Station's report dated 13.1.2007, drug licence, medical prescriptions written by Shanti Prakash Goyal were considered. It was found that Shanti Prakash Goyal was involved in medical professions having a clinic at Dalmau, Rai Bareli. The report submitted by the George Town Police Station's report dated 13.1.2007, drug licence, medical prescriptions written by Shanti Prakash Goyal were considered. It was found that Shanti Prakash Goyal was involved in medical professions having a clinic at Dalmau, Rai Bareli. His name was found in the electoral list and telephone bills issued• in his name were available on record. The notice under section 106 of T.P. Act was duly served on Shanti Prakash Goyal. The Court has taken note of the fact that Shanti Prakash Goyal had tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month. There existed a joint tenancy of three brothers, therefore, anyone of the brothers could have paid rent to the landlord. It does not make a difference whether the rent was tendered by one brother or the others. Several cheques were available on record, issuance and encashment of the same was found proved by the Manager Shri V.N. Pandey of the 'The Benares State Bank. The other witnesses had proved the fact regarding enhancement of rent, issuance of rent receipt. In the present case the revisionists have failed to prove the authenticity by alleged agreement dated 18.4.1989 even the handwriting Expert could not prove the signature of J.K. Gupta, on the Ekrarnama/agreement. The signatures were different, moreover the agreement was not got registered. The Court had carefully considered the report of the Handwriting expert and has recorded finding that the style and writing and signature were different. 19. It appears from the record that the J.S.C.C. has carefully considered the facts regarding payment of Rs. 3600/ - per month. The counterfoils were duly signed by the tenants Shanti Prakash Goyal. He was issued receipts for Rs. 3600/- per month as rent. These signatures were never disputed by Shanti Prakash Goyal nor he had denied the fact that he was carrying out medical practice at Dalmau Rai Bareili. Even the police report dated 13.1.2007 reveals that Shanti Prakash Goyal had taken the house from one Shri Ram Dutt Pandey on rent and was involved in medical practice. Medical prescriptions were issued by him to patients. The Court on the basis of evidence has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal had made false statement repeatedly before the Court. They changed their stand several times and did not come with clean hands. Medical prescriptions were issued by him to patients. The Court on the basis of evidence has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal had made false statement repeatedly before the Court. They changed their stand several times and did not come with clean hands. It was demonstrated before the Court that Shanti Prakash Goyal, co-tenants was of sound mind on the other hand it was pleaded that Shanti Prakash Goyal had obtained a loan from the landlord and in furtherance of the re-payment of rent, cheques for Rs. 3600/- was issued in favour of Jitendra Kumar Gupta, landlord. The paper No. 64-G.A. and the "drug licence" showed the name of Shanti Prakash Goyal as a licencee. 20. A person of unsound mind or weak mental status cannot be issued a drug licence by the Drug Controller. Such a person cannot dispense medicines to the patient and would be unable to give proper medicine as per the Doctor's prescriptions. Moreover he was found to be practising as a Doctor at Dalmau, Rai Bareili. The revisionists-tenants (defendants before the J.S.C.C.) had not denied issuance of drug licence in the name of Shanti Prakash Goyal, the medial prescription paper No. 54-G.A./4 written by Shanti Prakash Goyal, who was practicing in Dalmau, Rai Bareili was proved. P.W. 3 Vipin Kumar has proved the prescription bearing name and address of Shanti Prakash Goyal (as a qualified M.B.B.S. Doctor). However, his qualification was doubted by the revisionists so far. The Court had taken note of the fact that the debt clearance receipt was obtained by Dr. Shanti Prakash Goya's son Anshuman. According to him, he was paying regularly monthly instalment of Rs. 3600/- per month towards loan, though a debt release receipt of Rs. 70,000/- was alleged to be issued on 30.6.1999 by the landlord, received by Anshuman son of Shanti Prakash Goyal. The production of such debt clearance certificate or receipt of Rs. 70,000/- to Anshuman itself proves that infact the co-tenants Shanti Prakash Goyal was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per month after three months interval. He had signed the counterfoils kept by the landlord. He had signed the issued cheques towards payment of rent for the month of November, 1998 to December, 1998. The encashment of cheques were duly proved by the Bank Manager. 21. 3600/- per month after three months interval. He had signed the counterfoils kept by the landlord. He had signed the issued cheques towards payment of rent for the month of November, 1998 to December, 1998. The encashment of cheques were duly proved by the Bank Manager. 21. The J.S.C.C. had taken note that the landlord sent notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to all the tenants, who were in joint tenancy. The notices were duly received by the three real brothers, co-tenants. The Court has relied on a decision reported in 1989 (2) ARC page 2 to hold that after the death of the original tenant the tenancy is devolved on his legal heirs/successors. This joint tenancy of three brothers came into existence on 5.2.1990 after death of original tenant Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal. The tenancy was joint and undivisible. The J.S.C.C. has taken note of the fact that Shanti Prakash Goyal was having a drug licence to run the business in the name of "Goyal Pharmacy". It is admitted to all the three brothers, co-tenants (Revisionists) earlier. Earlier, the tenants were paying Rs. 80 per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 300 and later on further enhanced from January, 1998 to Rs. 3600/- per month. The J.S.C.C. has further held that the premises was not covered by Act No. XIII of 1972 as rent was above Rs. 2000/- per month i.e., 3600/- per month. As far as default in making payment of rent is concerned, the J.S.C.C. has recorded a detailed findings on the basis of admissions of the tenants that earlier they had tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month in January, 1999 through money order. They have deposited rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month (not Rs. 3600/- per month). They had defaulted in payment of rent on the date of issuance of notice. Even after agreeing to pay enhanced rent and paying the same for about a year it was not paid even after receiving the notice. 22. All the revisionists including S.P. Goyal, three brothers co-tenants had accepted receipt of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. They ought to have paid the arrears of rent to the landlord. This has not been done by the tenants and they had in fact defaulted in paying the rent. 23. 22. All the revisionists including S.P. Goyal, three brothers co-tenants had accepted receipt of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. They ought to have paid the arrears of rent to the landlord. This has not been done by the tenants and they had in fact defaulted in paying the rent. 23. In view of above discussions, this Court is fully satisfied that the case decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court is according to law. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by J.S.C.C. Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Allahabad. No interference is required and the Civil Revision No. 18 of 2005 preferred by Shreeram Goyal and another and Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009 preferred by Shanti Prakash Goyal are hereby dismissed with costs. All the consequences shall follow. The revisionists shall ensure compliance of the orders passed by the J.S.C. Court on 2.11.2004 immediately. The amount of rent deposited in this Court shall be released in favour of the landlord. 24. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009 preferred by Shanti Prakash Goyal. Civil Revisions Dismissed.