ORDER :- The petitioners have challenged the validity and correctness of judgments and orders dated 11-8-2005 and 13-2-2006 (appended as Annexures 7 and 9 respectively to the writ petition) passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 Meerut respectively.

2. Facts of the case, as have been disclosed in the writ petition, are that registered Rent lease/agreement dated 20-1-2000 regarding premises No. 212 Arvindpuri, Meerut was executed between the petitioners and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-landlady for a period of five years and onwards commencing from 1-7-1999 to run the Post Office on a monthly rent of Rs. 1250/-.

3. As per clauses 2, 14 and 15 of the agreement dated 20-1-2000, tenancy of the petitioners was to continue even after expiry of initial period of five years for future period on yearly basis and in the event of any dispute concerning the subject-matter and agreement, the matter was to be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by Government of India for decision under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.

4. It is claimed that the petitioners received notice dated 21-4-2004 from Smt. Jagdish Kaur, widow of late Sardar Gurdeep Singh through her counsel Sri Harcharan Singh Sarang on 22-4-2004 demanding vacant possession of the tenanted premises and arrears of rent up to 30-6-2004. It was also stipulated in the notice that in case of failure to comply with the terms of notice, landlady shall file a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent together with mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month.

5. Thereafter, J.S.C.C. Suit No. 56 of 2004 was filed by the landlady in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent on the grounds mentioned in the notice dated 21-4-2004.

6. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations inter alia that the notice dated 21-4-2004 was illegal; that they offered rent for month of June 2004 to the landlady, who refused to accept, as such, it was sent through Money Order, which too was refused; that entire rent from June to August 2004 together with interest @ 9% per annum was deposited by the tenants on the first date of hearing before the trial Court, that the suit was based on false and frivolous grounds and it was barred by the provisions of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 and that in view of specific clause 15 of the rent lease deed, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

7. Landlady, in support of her case, filed affidavit of Sri Rajeev Singh under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, who was also cross-examined as P.W. 1. He, in his cross-examination, admitted that he was not authorized by the landlady to submit any affidavit/statement but as she was suffering from knee pain, she was unable to appear before the Court and that the premises, in dispute, was needed by the landlady for members of her family. He also admitted that the building, in dispute was constructed in 1970.

8. The petitioners, in support of their case, filed affidavit of one Sri R. K. Rana who proved the rent lease and stated that construction of the building, in dispute, was about 50 years old and that due rent was offered to the landlady, who refused to accept the same.

9. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether the defendant had not complied with the terms of lease deed due to which he is liable for ejectment from the disputed premises ?

(ii) Whether the suit was barred under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 ?

(iii) Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Arbitration Act ? and

(iv) Relief for which the plaintiff is entitled.

10. Trial Court decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11-8-2005 directing the petitioners to h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document