In a suit for eviction on the ground of denial of landlord's title under Section 20 (2) (f) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the plaintiff must plead and prove not only denial of title but also that the plaintiff had not waived his right of re-entry and had not condoned the conduct of the tenant.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23. 4. 86 recorded by the Judge of the Court of small Causes, Kanpur Nagar, in S. C. C. Suit No. 25 of 1985. The matter was once heard by me and was disposed of by my order dated 7. 7. 97 whereby the revisional application was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE aggrieved revisionist went up in Civil Appeal No. 7329 of 1997 arising out of an S. L. P. (C) No. 18906 of 1997 to the Honble Supreme Court. The leave as prayed for was granted. The matter was heard and it was remanded back to this Court with an observation that the real dispute which survived in the revision was whether decree for possession as passed by the trial court on the ground of denial of title of the landlord by the present revisionist was legally justified or not and the Honlile Supreme Court was further of the view that this question, unfortunately, was not examined by the High Court on merits.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-respondents sued for possession of the suit premises on two grounds, (I) default in payment of rent and (2) denial of the title of the plaintiffs by the tenant. While deciding the issues, the trial judge had found that the default was there, but on a further Issue he had also found that the tenant was entitled to the protection under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus, the eviction was not permissible on the ground of default. This Court in its earlier judgment had overlooked the decision on Issue No. 4 giving the protection to the tenant under section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and although the controversy concerning denial of title was raised before it and case-laws were placed on that point, this Court under a mistaken idea, that the decree was on two grounds, declined to record any opinion on this second ground.

( 4 ) NOT only from the direction of the Honble Supreme Court but also from a second reading of the materials on record, it appears that the only point for consideration in this revision is whether the decree on the ground of denial of title was legally justified or not. The learned counsel in this court reiterated their arguments on the point which remained undecided on the earlier occasion.

( 5 ) REFERENCE may be made in this regard to Section 20 (2) (f) of the concerned rent law (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). In fact. Section 20 permits a suit for eviction on the grounds mentioned in different sub-clauses of clause (2) of that Section. Section 20 (2) (f) may be quoted : (f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord, and the latter has not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant. "

( 6 ) IT was submitted that in terms of the requirement of this Section, the plaintiff was to plead not only dental of title but there should have been a further pleading that the plaintiff had not waived his right of re-entry and had not condoned such act of the defendant-tenant. It was contended that in the absence of specific pleading concerning the legal requirements for a suit for eviction, no evidence on that point could be led.

( 7 ) IN reply to this argument, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents that Section 20 (2) (f) speaks of two conditions, (1) of a positive assertion of renouncement by the tenant of his character as such and denying the title of the landlord by him and there is a negative aspect: (2) that the act of the tenant was not condoned or the landlord had not waived his right of re-entry. It was contended that if the positive requirement was asserted, the negative assertion could be concluded from the total tenor of the plaint. Learned counsel also submitted that service of notice to quit upon the defendant was alleged and not denied and in the notice itself, it was indicated that the landlord had not waived his right of re-entry and had not condoned the act of the tenant.

(