The courts affirmed the plaintiff's right and title over the property, the status of the defendants as tenants, and the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, while also applying Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act to extend the limitation period for filing the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

2. Instant second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendants-appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in civil appeal no. 20 of 2019 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Original Suit No. 345 of 1986, Ram Dayal (substituted by his legal heirs) vs. Smt. Siya Dulari and others.

3. Facts culled out from the record on board are that Ram Dayal (substituted by his legal heirs), plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for eviction, possession and payment of arrears of rent against defendants-appellants alleging therein that the property in question was basically belonged to one Daya Krishna Paliwal, who had executed a registered sale deed dated 08.10.1963 in favour of Ram Dayal (plaintiff). After purchasing the property in question Ram Dayal has rented out southern portion of the house in question consist of one Kothari and one Dalan to one Bhura Nai (predecessor in the interest of defendants-appellants) at the monthly rent of Rs.5/- w.e.f. 01.01.1964. The tenancy was started from the first date of every English calendar month and completed on last date of English calendar month. Bhura Nai, who was also one of the witness of the sale deed, had died in the month of May, 1966 leaving behind him his widow (defendant-appellant no. 1), two sons and two daughters. The defendant no. 1/appellant no. 1 had continued to pay rent till July, 1966, however, since August, 1966 she had stopped paying rent. Thereafter, Ram Dayal had sent registered notice dated 29.10.1968 to the defendant for payment of arrears of rent and to vacate the portion of property in question which is in their possession. Notice was received by the defendant on 15.11.1968, however, neither she has vacated the premises in question nor paid the rent, as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. It is apposite to mention that initially plaintiff has filed a Small Causes Suit, being Case No. 356 of 1969 under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in brevity "Act, 1972"). During pendency of suit, after 14 years of its institution, defendants have moved an application (Paper No. 189-C) in the year 1983 under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act praying for return of plaint, as the suit involved intricated question of title. Against the said application plaintiff has filed an objection (Paper No. 191-C) opposing the application, however, vide order dated 19.09.1983, court of Munsif Hawali had allowed the application (Paper No. 189-C) and plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff. After receiving the plaint copy, plaintiff has instituted civil suit before the court competent. The defendants-appellants have filed their written statement dated 20.08.1987 denying the right and title of the plaintiff over the property in question alleging therein that neither Daya Krishna Paliwal was the owner of the property in question nor Ram Dayal (plaintiff) was owner and in possession over there, and alleged sale deed dated 08.10.1963, said to have been executed by Daya Krishna Paliwal in favour of Ram Dayal, is a forged document. It is further averred in the written statement that Bhura Nai was never tenant of Ram Dayal in the disputed portion of the property in question rather he was owner and in possession over the property in question since last 35-40 years and continued till his death, thereafter, defendants-appellants came into the possession thereof being successors of Bhura Nai. An specific plea has been taken in written statement denying the relationship of tenant and landlord between the defendants-appellants and the plaintiff-respondents. Institution of suit has been assailed being barred of limitation from the date of notice dated 29.10.1969 inasmuch as suit was filed after 12 years of notice