Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Question of interpretation of a deed termed as Thekanama dated 17.10.1970 executed in between petitioner and owner-respondent No. 3 Jagdish Prasad Gupta is involved in this writ petition.

2. Jagdish Prasad Gupta since deceased and survived by legal representatives was/is owner of a double storied house. Since before 17.10.1970 petitioner was tenant of the first floor accommodation and the ground floor accommodation was in occupation of two other tenants Pooran and Yasin. On 17.10.1970 two deeds were executed in between the parties (Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Abdul Salam Qureshi). One was for agreement for sale of the entire double storied building executed by Jagdish Prasad Gupta in favour of Abdul Salam Qureshi; the other was a deed termed as Thekanama. According to the agreement for sale, Jagdish Prasad Gutpa had agreed to sell the entire property to Abdul Salam Qureshi for a consideration of Rs. 31,000/- and half of the agreed sale consideration i.e. Rs. 15,500/- had been paid as earnest money by Abdul Salam Qureshi to Jagdish Prasad Gupta and sale deed was to be executed within a year after payment of balance sale consideration. It was also provided in the agreement that in case after execution of agreement for sale and before execution of sale deed Abdul Salam Kureshi paid some amount towards part of the remaining sale consideration (in addition to Rs. 15,500/- paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement for sale) then Jagdish Prasad Gupta would be liable to pay 1.5% per month interest on the said additional amount till execution of the sale deed.

3. Copy of the Thekanama is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. According to the said deed Abdul Salam Qureshi took the entire property on Theka from Jagdish Prasad Gupta at the rate of Rs. 232.50 per month for one year on the conditions mentioned in the said deed. It was further stated in the deed that white washing, painting, repair and payment of tax and all sort of maintenance, present and future would be the responsibility of Thekedar i.e. Abdul Salam Qureshi and Jagdish Prasad Gupta would not be responsible for the same at any time on any condition (para-4). Condition No. 5 of the Thekanama is important according to which during the continuance of the said deed Abdul Salam Qureshi would be entitled either to use the property by himself, to receive rent from the existing tenants, to evict them, to induct new tenants, to increase the rent etc. and to manage the property, however, in case the said deed was cancelled, all these rights would revert back to Jagdish Prasad Gupta and in that eventuality in case Jagdish Prasad Gupta received less than the Theka amount (i.e. Rs. 232.50 per month) then the said deficiency would be recoverable from Abdul Salam Qureshi. Clause-7 provides for renewal of the period for Thekanama. In para-2 of the said deed it is stated that Abdul Salam Qureshi has obtained possession of the property under Theka from Jagdish Prasad Gupta. In clause-3 of the said Thekanama it was provided that Jagdish Prasad Gupta would be entitled to get the Thekanama cancelled through competent Court and to evict Abdul Salam Qureshi, thereafter.

4. Respondent No. 3 Jagdish Prasad Gupta instituted SCC suit No. 47 of 1990 against petitioner giving rise to the instant writ petition. The suit was filed before JSCC, Meerut. In the plaint reference was made to Thekanama dated 17.10.1970 and it was stated that since 17.2.1980 the Theka amount (i.e. Rs. 232.50 per month) was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The relief claimed was that actual possession should be delivered to the plaintiff over first floor and formal possession of the ground floor. Arrears of Theka amount (which was termed as rent in the plaint) was also claimed in the plaint.

5. Additional JSCC, Meerut dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 10.9.1993. The trial Court held that through Thekenama possession was delivered by Jagdish Prasad Gupta to A