JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Office is directed to forward a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order passed in Small Causes Revision No. 9 of 2003 (Nanak Ram and others v. Shivanand and others) decided on 6.8.2010 (enclosed with this petition) to the District Judge, Mainpuri. The District Judge, Mainpuri is directed to hold an enquiry and to satisfy himself as to whether the array of parties as mentioned in the certified copy is factually correct or not. If the District Judge comes to the conclusion that array of parties mentioned is factually not correct, he shall take all appropriate action against the person responsible for preparing the certified copy. 2. Let a report be submitted by the District Judge, Mainpuri by 8.12.2010 through the Registrar General of this Court. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that he was also one of the Revisionist in Revision No. 9 of 2001 along with Nanak Ram who expired during the pendency of the Revision. In the certified copy of the final order issued, their names have wrongly not been mentioned. For the purpose he has produced the photostat copy of the formal order issued on 30.4.2010 which is kept on record. On Merits : 4. This is tenant’s writ petition directed against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Suit dated 11.11.2003 as also against the order of the Revisional Court dated 6.8.2010 passed in Revision No. 09 of 2003 (Nanak Ram and others v. Shivanand and others). 5. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : Shiv Nandan and Mahesh Chandra were the landlord of House No. 184, Mohalla Agrawal Shahar, District Mainpuri. They instituted an Original Suit No. 10 of 1993 before the Judge, Small Causes for eviction of Nanak Ram who was the tenant in question and the present petitioner namely Ram Singh and his brother on the allegation that they were inducted as Sikkimi in the premises in question by Nanak Ram. Further rent for a period of over 15 years was due. It was stated that a notice terminating the tenancy was forwarded to the tenant on 1.11.1992 which was received by the tenant on 6.11.1992. Since the tenant refused to vacate the premises and to pay the due rent, the suit was instituted. 6. Further rent for a period of over 15 years was due. It was stated that a notice terminating the tenancy was forwarded to the tenant on 1.11.1992 which was received by the tenant on 6.11.1992. Since the tenant refused to vacate the premises and to pay the due rent, the suit was instituted. 6. A written statement was filed on behalf of Nanak Ram and it was stated that he was not the tenant of the premises in question. He had obtained the premises on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. petitioner and his brother who were the real tenant. That house was taken for the said defendants No. 2 and 3 who were his nephew in view of the fact that for certain social reasons, they could not live in the house where Nanak Ram was residing. It was further stated that since 1991, the landlord has refused to issue any rent receipt, therefore, an application has been made to deposit the same in the Court. The application in that regard was pending before the Munsif Court, Mainpuri. A written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 3 separately and it was contended that Nanak Ram was not the tenant of the premises in question. It was admitted that Nanak Ram had a separate house in the same city of Mainpuri and that the house in question was taken on rent on their behalf by Nanak Ram at the time when they were minor. It was stated that since Nanak Ram was the Uncle of the petitioner, rent was being paid by him and the receipts were being issued in his name only. Other facts as stated in the written statement of Nanak Ram were repeated. 7. The Trial Court framed six issues for determination including the issue as to whether the tenant of the premises was Nanak Ram or Ram Singh (the present petitioner) and Bharat Singh. Another issue was framed with regard to the petitioner being Sikkimi tenant of Nanak Ram as well as with regard to default in payment of rent as alleged in the plaint. 8. The Judge, Small Causes answered the issue No. 1 against the defendants it was and held that the house in question was under the tenancy of Nanak Ram only and that the Bharat Singh and Ram Singh (petitioners) were not the tenants. 8. The Judge, Small Causes answered the issue No. 1 against the defendants it was and held that the house in question was under the tenancy of Nanak Ram only and that the Bharat Singh and Ram Singh (petitioners) were not the tenants. Issue No. 2 was also answered against the petitioner and it was held that Bharat Singh and Ram Singh (petitioner) were Sikkimi tenant of Nanak Ram. Issue No. 3 qua default in payment of rent was also answered against the tenant. The Court concerned further held that the tenants were not entitled to the benefits of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. Not being satisfied with the order of the Trial Court, Revision No. 09 of 2003 was filed by Nanak Ram along with Bharat Singh and Ram Singh. The Revisional Court after noticing the case pleaded by the parties and the issues framed by the Trial Court found that default in payment of the rent for the period 15.7.1977 to 31.10.1992 was established. The plea that the house in question was taken on rent by Nanak Ram on behalf of Bharat Singh and Ram Singh could not be established. It has been held that defendant could not substantiate that the house in question was taken on rent on their behalf by Nanak Ram. Since Bharat Singh and Ram Singh did not answer the description of family member as per Section 3 (g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 they have been held to be Sikkimi tenant. The Revisional Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Small Causes Court. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 10. This Court may record that during the pendency of the revision Nanak Ram expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record of the revisional proceedings. 11. It may also be noticed that the present writ petition has been filed by Ram Singh only. Bharat Singh and legal heirs of Nanak Ram have been impleaded as respondents in the present writ petition. 12. Challenging the orders impugned counsel on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings, the property in question was transferred in favour of Shanti Devi under a sale deed dated 31.9.2009. Bharat Singh and legal heirs of Nanak Ram have been impleaded as respondents in the present writ petition. 12. Challenging the orders impugned counsel on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings, the property in question was transferred in favour of Shanti Devi under a sale deed dated 31.9.2009. In the sale deed executed the right to collect the over due rent has not been transferred, therefore, in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the subsequent landlord/ owner has no right to collect the arrears of rent or to draw any advantage on the basis of the default qua earlier period, for evicting the tenant. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1989 Patna, 13 (Ram Tahal Modi v. Ratan Lal), specifically paragraph 7 and 8. It is further contended that the definition of family member as contained in Section 2(3) of the Act has to be given a liberal interpretation in the facts of the case inasmuch as petitioner and his real brother (Nanak Ram) constituted a joint hindu family. Nanak Ram as Karta became the guardian of the petitioner who was a co-parcener. Nanak Ram had his own house in the same city, the house in question was taken on rent on behalf of the petitioners along with his brother Bharat Singh both of whom were minor at the relevant time. The finding recorded qua the petitioner being Sikkimi tenant of Nanak Ram was legally not justified. It is stated that although rent receipts were issued in the name of Nanak Ram only but the receipts were issued in his favour as Karta of joint hindu family, therefore, rights of the petitioners as tenant could not be defeated on the strength of such receipts. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 14. This Court may record that except for pleading that the father of the petitioner had expired and that Nanak Ram was their Uncle and the premises was taken on rent on their behalf by Nanak Ram, absolutely no pleading had been made for establishing Nanak Ram and his brother i.e. the father of the petitioner constituted a joint hindu family. This Court may record that except for pleading that the father of the petitioner had expired and that Nanak Ram was their Uncle and the premises was taken on rent on their behalf by Nanak Ram, absolutely no pleading had been made for establishing Nanak Ram and his brother i.e. the father of the petitioner constituted a joint hindu family. There is absolutely no material which could establish that there was any joint hindu family or it had any corpus as claimed by the petitioner so as to establish the plea that Nanak Ram Uncle was the Karta. It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner was alive and being the natural mother, she became the natural guardian. It is further not in dispute that the rent receipts were all throughout issued in the name of Nanak Ram exclusively. The Trial Court after considering the entire evidence which has been brought on record has come to a conclusion that in the facts of the case Nanak Ram, Bharat Singh and the present petitioner Ram Singh hopelessly failed to establish that the premises in question was taken on rent on behalf of Bharat Singh and Ram Singh. It has been found as a matter of fact that the premises was let out to Nanak Ram only. The finding so recorded by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the Revisional Court while dismissing the revision. 15. I am of the considered opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities cannot be reopened on re-appreciation of evidence by this Court. The findings cannot be termed as perverse or based on no evidence. The findings recorded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Once it is established that Nanak Ram was the real tenant and that he had committed default in payment of rent and further since the Nanak Ram has not challenged the findings so recorded, it has become final so far as the tenant is concerned. This Court may record that it is not necessary at the behest of a person (petitioner) who has been found to be Sikkimi to enter into the issue as to whether the subsequent purchaser could have continued the proceedings after purchase of the property at the revisional stage or not. 17. This Court may record that it is not necessary at the behest of a person (petitioner) who has been found to be Sikkimi to enter into the issue as to whether the subsequent purchaser could have continued the proceedings after purchase of the property at the revisional stage or not. 17. This Court may record that a tenant becomes liable for eviction on committing default in payment of rent under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Consequence of eviction due to default viz a viz the right to collect rent under the sale deed are two different aspects of the matter. Once the default is established against the tenant in question, the landlord gets a right for eviction and this right can always be proceeded with by a subsequent purchaser of the property who steps into the shoes of the earlier landlord. In view of the aforesaid this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Writ petition is dismissed. 18. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that a period of one year would serve the interest of justice. Accordingly it is provided that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till 30.11.2011 provided : (a) he files an affidavit within a month from today along with a certified copy of this order before the judge, Small Causes categorically undertaking that he shall handover the possession of the premises peacefully in terms of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court to the landlord on or before 31.5.2011. (b) he deposits decreetal amount as well as damages @ Rs.100/- per month for use and occupation of the premises, from the date of the order of the Trial Court, for the period up to 30.11.2011 in advance along with the affidavit aforesaid with the landlord through a Bank Draft of a Nationalized Bank. 19. In case of default in compliance with any of the conditions mentioned above, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefits of this order and the landlord will be free to proceed in accordance with law. —————