Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2916 (ALL)

Arti Devi Jaiswal (Major) v. Shankar Prasad

2016-08-23

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh has appeared for respondent no. 1. 2. Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi together instituted SCC Suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioners in respect of House No. C-7/49 Mohalla Senpura, District Varanasi. The said suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court vide judgement and order dated 30.07.2012. The revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act 1887 was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 19.07.2016. 3. The above two judgements and orders of the courts below have been impugned by this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no notice determining the tenancy was served upon the petitioners. Secondly, they were paying rent to Smt. Tara Devi. The aforesaid Sushila Devi and Krishna Devi never gave any information that they have acquired the property exclusively from their mother Smt. Tara Devi. Therefore, they had not paid rent to them. 5. In respect of the above two aspects of the matter, the Small Causes Court had framed issue no. 4 regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and issue no. 5 regarding the service of notice dated 23.04.2002. 6. The trial court held that the copy notice dated 23.04.2002, the receipt of the registry, acknowledgement etc. were produced and proved. Since the notice was sent by registered post at the correct address of the petitioners it is deemed to be served. 7. The revisional court in this regard stated that the petitioners have not assailed the finding with regard to the deemed service of notice. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there appears to be no substance in the argument of the counsel that the notice was not served. 9. In regard to the relationship of the landlord-tenant, the trial court held that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Tara Devi, Sushila Devi and Krishna Devi jointly vide sale deed dated 14.08.1981, which was on record. Subsequently, in O.S. No. 881 of 1987 between the mother and the daughters the property came in the exclusive ownership of Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi vide decree dated 05.01.1988. On the basis of the said decree, their names were also mutated in the municipal record. Subsequently, in O.S. No. 881 of 1987 between the mother and the daughters the property came in the exclusive ownership of Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi vide decree dated 05.01.1988. On the basis of the said decree, their names were also mutated in the municipal record. The petitioners were given a notice of demand of rent and termination of tenancy which was deemed to have been served upon them meaning thereby that they acquired knowledge of the transfer of ownership of the property. Accordingly, the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the parties. 10. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by the revisional court as the above two documents which formed the basis of the said finding were not disputed except for saying that the petitioners had no knowledge of the decree passed in Suit No. 881 of 1987. In this regard the courts below have held that the petitioners impliedly acquired knowledge of the said decree or of the exclusive ownership of Smt. Sushila Devi and Krishna Devi on the deemed service of notice of demand which they failed to respond. 11. In addition to the above, it is relevant to mention here that by the sale deed dated 14.08.1981 which is not disputed, the house was purchased not only by Smt. Tara Devi but by her two daughters Smt. Sushila Devi and Krishna Devi. So all the three of them together were joint owners of the property. Thus, if the property has been let out by one of them, it will be deemed to have been let out by all three of them entitling any of them to bring a suit for the eviction of the tenant. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the second submission of learned counsel also has no substance and fails. 13. Accordingly, I find no error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned judgements & orders passed by the courts below and the consequent decree thereof. 14. The petition as such lacks merits and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.