ORDER : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Court of Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri and judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Additional District Judge-III in SCC Revision No.14/2016. 2. Respondent No.3 filed a suit before the Small Causes Court stating therein that she was the owner of the shop in question. She further said that Kaushal Kishore Gupta s/o Puttu Lal Gupta was the owner of the shop before her. The stop was situated on a Nazul land and the State Government vide freehold deed dated 16.03.2000 transferred the said shop in favour of Kaushal Kishore Gupta. After Kaushal Kishore Gupta became the owner of the aforesaid shop, he vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2010 transferred the shop in question in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. In view of the registered sale deed in her favour, she became the land lady of the shop. The petitioners/defendants were in possession of the aforesaid shop as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. They had not paid rent with effect from January, 2000 either to the erstwhile owner, Kaushal Kishore Gupta or to the respondent-plaintiff. 3. It was further said that when the plaintiff purchased the shop, she informed about it to the defendants and demanded the rent but the defendants did not pay the rent. Vide registered notice dated 6-8.9.2010 rent was demanded from the tenants and said that in the event of failure to make the payment of rent the tenancy would get terminated. 4. After the service of the notice, the tenants neither paid the rent nor they vacated the premises but disputed the ownership of the petitioners over the shop in question. It was further said that dispute was covered under the provisions of Act No.13 of 1972 and the plaintiff was entitled to get the shop vacated on the ground that the tenants had not only paid the rent but had also disputed the ownership of the plaintiff. It was further said that arrears of rent was not paid between January, 2000 and August, 2010 i.e. for 127 months at the rate of Rs.200/-. It was further said that arrears of rent was not paid between January, 2000 and August, 2010 i.e. for 127 months at the rate of Rs.200/-. It would come to Rs.25,400/-but the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit for recovery of rent only for three years and, therefore, prayer was made for recovery of arrears of rent for 3 years. Thus, a decree for eviction was sought along with recovery of rent for 3 years i.e. Rs.7200/-. 5. After summons were served, the defendants filed their written statement and they denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the shop in question. They also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. It was further said that one Jaidev Sharma was the owner of the shop in question and they were the tenants of Jaidev Sharma for rent of Rs.50/-per month and they had been paying the rent regularly to Jaidev Sharma. It was also said that the defendants were neither the tenants nor the plaintiff was owner of the shop in question, therefore, the plaintiff did not have any right to determine the tenancy neither she was entitled for demand of any arrears of rent. It was further said that in respect of the property where the shop was situated, a case was pending before Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench since 1999 and further, in respect of the very same property a case was also pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri. It was also said that the defendants were in possession of the shop for three generations and were doing the business of milk-cake. The grandfather of the defendants was the tenant of one Ranno Devi and after the death of their grandfather, their father was doing the business of milk-cake from the same shop and after the death of Ranno Devi, rent was paid to her legal heir, Rudra Dutt Sharma. After the demise of their father, the defendants were doing the business of milk-cake from the said shop and the rent had been paid to the daughter of Rudra Dutt Sharma, Smt. Pramila Sharma and after the death of Pramila Sharma, rent was paid to the owner, Jaidev Sharma. 6. After the demise of their father, the defendants were doing the business of milk-cake from the said shop and the rent had been paid to the daughter of Rudra Dutt Sharma, Smt. Pramila Sharma and after the death of Pramila Sharma, rent was paid to the owner, Jaidev Sharma. 6. Despite knowledge of the cases pending in respect of the property, the plaintiff had bought shop in question from one Kaushal Kishore Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2010. Kaushal Kishore Gupta was the party in the cases pending before different courts and concealing these facts, he had executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff which was void. It was said that during the pendency of the cases in respect of the property, Kaushal Kishore Gupta did not have any right to execute the sale deed and, therefore, the plaintiff did not become the owner of shop in question by the sale-deed dated 31.03.2010 executed in her favour by Kaushal Kishore Gupta. It was further said that the suit was filed against the provisions of Act No.13 of 1972 and was liable to be dismissed. 7. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsels representing the parties, perusing the record and evidence, formulated two following questions for answer:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the shop in question vacated from the tenants; and (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent from the tenants with damages. 8. The Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties and on the basis of registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff held that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in question and the defendants in their reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff had accepted the fact that they were the tenant of the shop in question. It was also held that free hold deed was executed on 16.03.2000 in respect of the shop in question in favour of Kaushal Kishore Gupta. Thereafter, Kaushal Kishore Gupta sold this property in favour of the plaintiff. Despite receipt of notice from the plaintiff, the defendants did not make payment of arrears of rent nor they had tendered the rent in the Court nor they had vacated the shop in question. Thereafter, Kaushal Kishore Gupta sold this property in favour of the plaintiff. Despite receipt of notice from the plaintiff, the defendants did not make payment of arrears of rent nor they had tendered the rent in the Court nor they had vacated the shop in question. There was no injunction operating in respect of the suit property and the injunction application in Suit No.31 of 2003: Jaidev Sharma versus Kaushal Kishore Gupta was rejected vide order dated 29.03.2008 against which appeal had also been rejected. 9. It appears that the defendants had filed an Application 47C under Section 23 (1) of the Small Causes Court Act. However, the Court held that the said application would be decided along with final hearing in the suit itself. It was said that the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff over the said property for which they could move before the competent Civil Court but the case being small cause case which had been filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants and realisation of the arrears of rent, the said application was rejected. Thus, it was held that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in question pursuant to the registered deed dated 10.03.2010 and she gave the notice to the defendants demanding the arrears of rent. However, the defendants did not pay the arrears of rent and disputed the title over the shop in question. They did not vacate the premises and, therefore, question No.(i) was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 10. On question No.(ii) the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in question and the defendants were the tenants. The plaintiff had terminated the tenancy by notice inasmuch as the defendants had not made payment of arrears of rent and despite the service of the said notice neither arrears of rent was paid nor the shop was vacated and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for eviction of the defendants from the shop in question and also arrears of rent. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.08.2016, the petitioner-defendants filed SCC Revision No.14 of 2016. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.08.2016, the petitioner-defendants filed SCC Revision No.14 of 2016. The Revisional Court held that Kaushal Kishore Gupta bought the shop in question through sale deed dated 26.10.1991 from Ravikant Sharma. Jaidev Sharma filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 26.10.1991, however, Jaidev Sharma withdrew the said suit on 29.03.2008. Since the shop was situated on Nazul land, the Government vide freehold deed dated 16.03.2000 transferred its right in favour of Kaushal Kishore Gupta and Kaushal Kishore Gupta sold the aforesaid property vide sale deed dated 31.03.2010 in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid, it has been held that after 16.03.2000 Kaushal Kishore Gupta became the absolute owner of the suit property. He had transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff on 31.03.2010. It has been further said that despite the notice having been received by the defendants, they failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff neither they tendered the rent in the Court nor they vacated the shop in question and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings, the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2018. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava submits that the Trial court should have framed the issues regarding the title inasmuch as the defendants had specifically denied the title of the plaintiff in their written statement but without framing the issue on this point, the Trial Court has proceeded to decide the case which is against the law. He further submits that no finding under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act No.13 of 1972 has been recorded by the Trial Court. It has further been said that the Courts below have not considered the material pleadings and without taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, impugned judgment and orders have been pronounced which are against the law. 14. It has further been said that the Courts below have not considered the material pleadings and without taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, impugned judgment and orders have been pronounced which are against the law. 14. It has also been contended that allegedly tenancy of the petitioner got terminated vide notice dated 06-08.09.2010 demanding arrears of rent for 127 months and possession of the shop for personal need within a period of 30 days. Therefore, case under Section 21 of the Act No.13 of 1972 should not have been filed and the suit was not maintainable in the SCC Court. The suit for release on personal ground by a new owner is barred up to 3 years under the provisions to Section 21(1) of the Act No.13 of 1972. In view of the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Act, the suit could have been filed only after 31.03.2013 but SCC suit was filed just after 6 months from the date of alleged purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit was barred and should not have been entertained. 15. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Gautam and another versus VIIIth Additional District Judge(Judge, S.C.C.) Allahabad and another : (1993) 1 ARC 44 wherein it has been held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 20(2)(f) of Act No.13 of 1972 two conditions must coexist: (i) there should be denial of landlord's title by the tenant; and (ii) the re-entry arising from denial should neither be waived nor the conduct of tenant be condoned. 16. It has further been held that it is not only necessary for the landlord to prove that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord but it is also necessary to allege and prove that the landlord has not waived his right of re-entry and condoned the conduct of the tenant. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment (supra) reads as under:- "14. The Trial Court has framed issue No.4 with regard to the denial of title of the plaintiff by the tenant and its effect. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment (supra) reads as under:- "14. The Trial Court has framed issue No.4 with regard to the denial of title of the plaintiff by the tenant and its effect. The trial Court should have framed a further issue and allowed the parties to lead evidence on that issue as to whether the landlord has not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenants. This should have been a specific issue and finding on this was definitely to be given by the trial Court. The trial Court has construed the one line of Para 17 of the written statement as amounting to denial of title of the respondent No.2 as landlord by the revisionists over the suit property. IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 that the assertion made by the revisionists was absolutely false and baseless. It was contended that the garage, which was claimed by the revisionists as part of the tenanted property, and the land, which was said to be included in the tenanted property was taken in possession by the other co-vendees of the entire property, of which the tenanted property is only a parcel. The revisionists had not denied this fact nor was there any evidence led that the garrage or the said land, which the revisionists claim to be their tenanted property, was in their possession. On the other hand, the garrage and the land, which the revisionists claim to be included in the tenanted premises, is not so included and the portion occupied by the revisionists was purchased by the respondent No.2 and the revisionists had the knowledge that the respondent No.2 alone was the owner of the portion, which was under the tenancy of the revisionists. Therefore, the claim of the revisionists was not bona fide. In other words, it would mean that if the assertion is bona fide with regard to the respondent No.2 not being the exclusive owner of the premises then the provisions of Section 20(2)(f) of the Act would not be attracted. In order to ascertain this fact it was the erstwhile landlord, who had alienated the property in favor of a number of vendees by a composite sale deed to ascertain the extent and measurement of the premises held by the revisionists under their occupancy. In order to ascertain this fact it was the erstwhile landlord, who had alienated the property in favor of a number of vendees by a composite sale deed to ascertain the extent and measurement of the premises held by the revisionists under their occupancy. The trial Court seems to have rushed through and ignored certain documents from consideration and has arrived at a finding, which is not in accordance with law. The trial Court's jurisdiction to arrive at a conclusion is not disputed but the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court must be based on cogent, reliable and relevant evidence, otherwise there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice in a case of this nature." 16. The next judgment which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the judgment of this court in the case of Jugal Kishore Pandey versus Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Gorakhpur and others. Para 23 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "23. From a careful reading of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the abovenoted pronouncements, it is discernible that the question as to whether in a given case the tenant had denied the title of the landlord setting up a title in himself or in a third party has to be examined on the pleadings made by him and in finding his intention whether to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord or to protect himself. It cannot be simply said that as the tenant has not set up title in himself or denied the title of the subsequent landlord, it would mean that it is a case of denial of derivative title of the landlord. " 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Avtar Goel versus Jagannath Gupta and another : 2002(1) AWC 2012. Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "17. The trial Court has relied upon the decision in Col. Zamir Ahmad v. Smt. Shahahan Begum 1988 (1) ARC 507, wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence regarding condonation of waiver, it should be held that there was no condonation. Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "17. The trial Court has relied upon the decision in Col. Zamir Ahmad v. Smt. Shahahan Begum 1988 (1) ARC 507, wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence regarding condonation of waiver, it should be held that there was no condonation. The trial Court has also relied upon the decision in Narain Das Khanna v. Jawahar Lal Bhatia 1982 ALJ 1441, in which it has been held that in case the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, decree for eviction can be passed against him. From para 10 of the judgment of this case, it is clear that no evidence had been given upon the point of condonation and the suit was decreed on the ground of denial of title. Shri Naiyer submitted that in the remand order passed by this Court, it has been held that the decision in the case of Narain Das Khanna v. Jawahar Lal Bhatia (supra) has no application and that the trial court has gone against the remand order by placing reliance upon the decision in Narain Das. What has been held in the remand order by this Court while considering the case of Narain Das Khanna (supra), is that in that decision, there was not only denial of title but such denial also resulted in the renouncement of the character of the tenant whereas the question in the present case was not the factum of denial but whether the pleading was a proper one in terms of the requirement of the Section. The contention of Shri Naiyer that the decision of Narain Das, would have no application is not sound." 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the defendants though denied the title of the plaintiff over the shop in question but the Trial Court and the Revisional Court after considering the evidence brought on record have held that the ownership of the plaintiff has been established by the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2010 executed in favour by the erstwhile owner, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Gupta. The defendants had not denied that they were the tenants of shop in question. Kaushal Kishore Gupta. The defendants had not denied that they were the tenants of shop in question. Once the ownership was established and the tenants admitted that they were tenant of the shop in question, relationship of the landlord and the tenant got established and, therefore, the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide it in accordance with law. He further submits that the tenant neither paid the rent to the landlord nor they tendered the rent in the Court as is required under Section 20 of the Act of 13 of 1972. The Trial Court has decreed the suit on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. He further submits that the tenant had disputed the title of the plaintiff (landlord) and they had also not paid the arrears of rent nor they vacated the premises and the landlady has neither waved nor condoned the conduct of the tenant and, therefore, she was entitled for eviction under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act No.13 of 1972 as well. He further submits that even if the case of the plaintiff can be said to be not proved under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act No.13 of 1972, since the decree of eviction has been passed for failure to make payment of arrears of rent, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by the Court below. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ram Janki Mandir versus Nuruddin Bharmal : 2017 AIR (SC) 2693. 19. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 20. The petitioners/defendants in reply to the notice dated 06-08.09.2010 had denied the title of the plaintiff and her claim for arrears of rent. It was specifically said in the notice that in case of failure to make payment of arrears of rent within a period of 30 days, the tenancy would be deemed to have been terminated and the plaintiff would have right to occupy the shop in question. There was specific pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff has neither waved nor condoned the conduct of the tenant in not making the payment and denying the title. There was specific pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff has neither waved nor condoned the conduct of the tenant in not making the payment and denying the title. Thus, two conditions precedent for suit under Section 20(2)(f) of Act No.13 of 1972 got fulfilled inasmuch as the tenant had denied the title and the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that she had neither waved nor condoned the conduct of the tenant. 21. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court had committed any error in passing the decree of eviction under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act No.13 of 1972. Since the eviction has also been passed for non payment of arrears of rent which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants at any stage and nor they have tendered the rent in the Court, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality for which this Court should exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thus, the present writ petition is dismissed. 22. The petitioners/defendants have been carrying out business from the shop in question for three generations. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to grant them time of two years to vacate the premises in question subject to filing an undertaking in this regard in the Court within a period of three weeks and make payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.7200/-till filing of the suit and thereafter, further rent @ Rs. 200 per month. The arrears of rent as directed by Trial Court along with further arrears are to be paid within a period of five weeks. In case of failure to file undertaking within the aforesaid period, the respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to execute the decree against them for eviction in accordance with law.