Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kunwar Ajay Singh, Advocate for Caveator-respondent.

2. The respondent is the landlord of House No. 119/499, Darshanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar which he purchased vide sale-deed dated 4.10.1985.

3. Sri Sukh Lal (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs, i.e., petitioner No. 1/1 etc.) was already a tenant in certain portion of aforesaid house comprising one room, verandah, Courtyard and chhajja on first floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. On the ground that tenant had committed default in payment of rent, an ejectment suit was filed by respondent-landlord being SCC Suit No. 271 of 1988, in the Court of Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner-tenants contested suit on various grounds including that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants. The respondent-landlord’s title which he founded on sale-deed dated 4.10.1985, was also denied.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.9.2011 recorded findings that respondent-landlord was owner of accommodation in question and, therefore, rent was payable to him, hence satisfy the definition of “landlord” under Section 3(j) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”); the petitioners-tenants had committed default in payment of rent and though the entire dues were deposited, as contemplated in Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 on the first hearing of suit but since there is a denial of title of landlord over the tenanted accommodation, the petitioner-tenants were liable for ejectment on the ground under Section 20(2)(f) of Act, 1972. Accordingly it passed a decree of ejectment and recovery of rent etc. from petitioner-tenants. This judgment of Trial Court has been confirmed in SCC Revision No. 95 of 2011 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 20, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 9.8.2012.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced only one submission that a derivative title, if disputed, does not amount to denouncement of title and, therefore, the suit for ejectment ought not to have been decreed on ground under Section 20(2)(f) of Act, 1972. He placed reliance on the Apex Court’s decision in Sheela and others v. First Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, AIR 2002 SC 1264 and a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Chotey Lal Shukla since deceased and survived by legal representatives v. IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another, 2007(2) ARC 453. Though with a bit reluctance, it was also argued that house number was not mentioned on the registry receipt, meaning thereby complete address was not mentioned on the registered envelop whereby notice was issued to petitioners-tenants determining their tenancy. Such registered post will not result in drawl of presumption of service, if received back with the postal endorsement of refusal and on this aspect he placed reliance on a Single Judge decision in Dharam Pal Tyagi v. Anil Kumar, 1986(2) ARC 121.

6. I propose to take up the second issue first. There is nothing on record to show that envelop in which notice remitted to petitioners by respondent-landlord demanding rent and determining tenancy, was kept, did not contain complete address. What actually has been argued before this Court is that in the receipt issued by postal department complete address was not mentioned, and, therefore, an inference has been drawn by petitioner-tenants that complete address was not mentioned on the envelop also. The Court finds that though the receipt which is on record on page 23 mentions only name of sender and the city for which registered item was received by postal authorities, but then on page 24, a photocopy of envelop is also there which mentions complete address of petitioners-tenants. Hence it cannot be said that there is any flaw in sending registry to tenants with regard to address. The address on the envelop was complete. It