The appellants alleged that the tenant i.e. the predecessor in interest of the respondents paid rent till October, 1979 and thereafter persistently failed to make payment thereof in spite of repeated demands.
The suit and the application filed under Section 21 of the Act have been dismissed in two separate proceedings by the High Court vide orders dated 25.02.2014 in P. C No.
The defendant tenant admitted Smt.
Chameli Devi and thereafter, by their father Bhola Nath, during his lifetime.
26732 of 2010 and Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.31855 of 1998.
The appellants in particular examined their father Bhola Nath as PW2, who admittedly used to companylect rent from the defendant tenant till September, 1979, as claimed by them.
Chameli Devi, who supported the pleaded case of the appellants and endorsed the factum of execution of will by Smt.
Case No.41 of 1990 for the months of October, 1989 to January, 1990.
Chameli Devi.
The suit was thus decreed in full, as prayed for.
It was thus averred that on this ground as well, as the sub letting was done without the knowledge and companysent of the landlords, the tenant was liable for eviction.
Parallelly the appellants also filed an application under Section 21 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority against the original defendant tenant seeking release of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and genuine need therefor to, amongst others companyduct their business therein.
In reaching this companyclusion, the High Court numbered that Bhola Nath, the father of the appellants used to companylect rent from the original defendant throughout and that they did number at any point of time claim to be the owners landlords of the suit property, pursuant to the will executed by Smt.
It was further alleged that the tenant also sub let the suit premises to one Moti Chand for companyducting his business therein.
The Revisional Court, on remand, however maintained that the will dated 28.12.1976, on the basis of which the appellants claimed joint ownership had number been proved, as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Chameli Devi, who had two sons Bhola Nath and Bacchanlal, but admitted that the eldest son Bhola Nath used to realize rent from him.
95 of 1986, companysistently referred to by all the Forums, would divulge, Mahavir Prasad and Chameli Devi had two sons Bhola Nath and Bachhan Lal.
The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed issues and the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary.
Apropos, the proceedings based on the application under Section 21 of the Act for the eviction of the original defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement, the High Court, by the impugned verdict, upheld the rejection thereof, as recorded by the Prescribed Authority by negating their status of that of a landlord.
According to him, Motichand was his nephew and partner in his business and that as he was like his own son, the allegation of sub letting was unfounded.
95 of 1986, in which the joint ownership of the appellants in the suit premises had been decreed.
The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court, which remanded the matter to the Revisional Court by numbericing, in particular the companypromise decree dated 05.04.1989 in Original Case No.
He claimed that the tenancy had companymenced from 1957 and that he had paid rent up to the month of September, 1989 to the landlord, Bhola Nath father of the appellants and that on his refusal to accept the same thereafter, he had deposited the rent in companyrt under Section 30 of the Act.
Noticeably, the predecessor in interest of the respondents had admitted the tenancy under Smt.
95 of 1986 and their status as the heirs of Smt.
By the impugned judgment and order as well, the High Court, while limiting itself to the aspect of the proof of the will, companycurred with the Revisional Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants.
Consequently, the Revisional Court did number examine the other issues on merits.
In reaching this companyclusion, it amongst others took numbere of the testimony of Bhola Nath, son of Smt.
This application was companytested as well by the original defendant by filing his objection questioning the bona fide need of the appellants.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, both on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub letting of the suit premises.
He admitted the receipt of the numberice dated 18.08.1989, but denied that he was a defaulter in payment of rent or that he was liable for eviction from the suit premises.
This verdict was challenged by the original defendant tenant in revision before the District Judge, Allahabad, who reversed the same on the ground that the appellants have number been able to prove that they were the exclusive landlords owners of the suit premises.
The suit was thus dismissed by upturning the decree of the Trial Court.
According to the tenant, he again on 12.01.1990 remitted the rent for the months of October, 1989 to January, 1990 by money order and as the same was refused again, he started depositing the rent in Court, the first deposit being vide Misc.
Chameli Devi to be the landlady who used to realize the rent till her life time and after her death, Bhola Nath, her eldest son used to companylect the same.
As against this, the learned companynsel for the respondents has maintained that the appellants in the attendant facts and circumstances are neither the landlords number the owners of the suit premises, which is clearly borne out by the fact that the rent therefor was initially companylected by Smt.
The suit was thus filed for recovery of arrears of rent, eviction of the tenant defendant and for damages for unauthorised use or occupation of the tenanted premises as well as for interest.
252 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad against Mishri Lal, the predecessor in interest of the present respondents seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub letting of the suit premises without the knowledge and approval of the landlords i.e. the appellants.
He stated that thereafter, for the second time, he dispatched the rent for the months of October, November and December, 1989 on 26.12.1989 by money order but similarly the same was refused.
We have heard Mr. Anand Varma, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, learned companynsel for the respondents.
He denied the execution of the will dated 28.12.1976 by Smt.
The appellants claimed themselves to be the joint owners of the suit premises since the death of their grand mother Chameli Devi, widow of late Mahabir Prasad on 30.07.1985.
They averred that the predecessor in interest of the respondents was a tenant of the suit premises since 1968 against payment of monthly rent of Rs.
AMITAVA ROY, J. Delay companydoned.
Besides, it also expressed its reservation with regard to the authenticity and genuineness of this document.
Leave granted.
Chameli Devi on 28.12.1976 had number been proved.
The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Suit No.
The appellants plaintiffs for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit and the application under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises on the ground, amongst others of default and bona fide requirement.
As numbered hereinabove, the appellants are the sons of Bhola Nath.
96/ and the same was rented out on the clear understanding that the tenant would vacate the same on one months numberice.
The original defendant tenant in his written statement though admitted the tenancy under Smt.
It also companycurred with the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court on the issue of bona fide need and companyparative hardship.
Both these petitions were analogously heard and thus the present adjudication would address companylectively the issues involved.
They referred to a will dated 28.12.1976 executed by their afore named grand mother in support of their claim of joint ownership.
Chameli Devi, the grand mother of the appellants, he refused to acknowledge the appellants as his landlords.
Situated thus, the appellants addressed a numberice dated 18.08.1989 terminating the tenancy, demanding payment of the arrears of rent within the statutory period of one month with the clear indication that in case of failure to respond to the numberice and the request for rent, the tenancy would stand determined and that the tenant would be liable for eviction.
