Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3689 (ALL)

Radhaballabh v. Champaran Jain

2016-11-10

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition arises out of SCC suit filed for arrears of rent, damages and eviction against the petitioners and seeks quashing of the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court and the revisional order dated 06.08.2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by one Champaram Jain on the allegations that the shop in question belonged to one Kanhaiya Lal, who mortgaged the same with possession in favour of one Dayawati. In 1951, the mortgagee rented this shop to the petitioners. The shop was sold in execution of a decree, passed against Kanhaiya Lal. The auction purchaser was the father of the plaintiff, Champaram and he obtained possession in execution proceedings through the Court Amin. 4. Another decree against Dayawati Jain and her son was also executed and some shops were purchased by Sampati Lal Jain in an auction during execution of the said decree and also obtained possession. He thereafter sold the property to Champaram, who redeemed the mortgage, Champaram, father of the plaintiff therefore, became absolute owner of the shop in question. 5. Sampati lal Jain, the auction purchaser informed the tenant petitioners by a notice in August, 1970 that the plaintiff had acquired title to the shop in question. This notice was duly received on 21.08.1970 by Radhaballabh, the tenant. 6. Despite notice, the tenant failed to pay rent. On 05.10.1971, another notice was sent to the tenant, the father of the petitioners, terminating the tenancy and demanding 13 months arrears of rent. This notice was received by the tenant on 07.10.1971 and hence the suit. 7. The father of the petitioners 1/1 and 1/2, Radhaballabh, the original tenant, contested the suit alleging that no landlord tenant relationship existed between the parties. The owner of the shop in question was Dayawati and rent had been paid to her. He however also submitted that there was no subletting and that he was not aware of the mortgage having been redeemed. In 1994, Jeevan Prakash, son of Dayawati, the mortgagee, filed a suit for arrears of rent which was dismissed granting benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. He however also submitted that there was no subletting and that he was not aware of the mortgage having been redeemed. In 1994, Jeevan Prakash, son of Dayawati, the mortgagee, filed a suit for arrears of rent which was dismissed granting benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Subsequently, when the dispute of title came to his knowledge, the rent was being deposited under Section 30 of the Rent Control Act. 8. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the notice terminating the tenant had been duly served upon the Radhaballabh. This finding was returned on the admission of DW-1, Dharmendra Kumar, in his oral testimony, wherein this fact was admitted. It has also been observed that although, the tenant alleged that he had paid rent to Dayawati, no proof in this regard had been furnished. The tenant also failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim that the title of the shop in question, vested in Dayawati. 9. On the contrary, relying upon the various orders and documentary evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, the Courts bellow have found that Champaram was the owner of the shop in question. On the basis of the above, a finding has been returned that, despite knowledge that the plaintiff had become the owner of the shop in question, no rent was actually paid and since the service of the notice terminating the tenancy was found to be proved on the basis of the statement of the DW-1, Dharmendra Kumar, the suit has been decreed and consequential revision has also been dismissed. 10. Upon hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and upon a perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error therein, which would warrant interference. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.