The court affirmed the revisional court's findings on landlord-tenant relationships and notice validity, emphasizing statutory interpretation and jurisdictional limits under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard Mr. Ausaf Ahmad Khan learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party No.3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 being merely proforma in nature, notices are dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 31st January, 2009 passed in SCC Revision No. 29 of 2006 whereby revision preferred by opposite party No.3/land lord has been allowed setting aside judgment and order dated 16th February, 2006 passed in SCC Suit No. 160 of 1997.

3. It has been submitted that aforesaid SCC Suit had been filed by opposite party No.3/land lord for arrears of rent and ejectment against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner. The aforesaid suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16th February, 2006 against which the aforesaid revision had been filed by land-lord and has been allowed.

4. It has been submitted that the original tenant who was predecessor-in-interest of petitioner filed his written statement denying the title of plaintiff on the ground that premises in question, being residential were in fact purchased by him from the mother of plaintiff and on that score his title was denied along with any land lord-tenant relationship. It is submitted that validity of service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also denied along with denial of arrears of rent.

5. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of pleadings trial court framed five issues:-

(a) Whether land-lord-tenant relationship existed?

(b) Whether the notice given by land-lord was valid?

(c) Whether plaintiff has been able to prove his title over the premises?

(d) Whether there is any default in payment of rent?

(e) Whether the S.C.C. court had jurisdiction to hear the suit?

6. Learned counsel submits that trial court decided issues No.1 and 3 conjointly and held that there was no landlord tenant relationship between the two nor were either of the parties able to prove their title over the property in question. Validity of notice was also held against the plaintiff and on that ground, the suit was dismissed.

7. It has been submitted that revisional court has clearly erred in interfering with the judgment and order passed by the trial court while exercising powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act since evidence has been reappreciated, which could not have been done. It is submitted that clearly as per pleadings and findings of the trial court, land-lord tenant relationship was not made out and reversal of such finding by the revisional court is against material on record. It has also been submitted that the trial court correctly recorded the fact that service of notice as required under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was defective and that the finding pertaining to Section 29(A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 has also been incorrectly decided by the revisional court.

8. Learned counsel has placed reliance on certain judgments in the cases of M/s. Madan and Company v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264; Dharmpal Singh v. Jitendra Prasad Gupta and others, 2015 SCC Online 5279; Trilok Singh Chauhan v. Ram Lal (dead) through L.Rs., (2018) 2 SCC 566; Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 and Smt. Renu Gupta v. Smt. Kanti Devi (deceased) and others, 2012 (11) ADJ 497 to buttress his submissions.

9. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that revisional court has correctly recorded the finding regarding land-lord tenant relationship in terms of material already on record and admission on the part of original tenant/defendant. It has been submitted that notice was also correctly held to have been served in terms of section 27 of the General Clauses Act and that the revisional court has acted very well within jurisdiction of Section 25 of the Small causes Court Act. Learned counsel further submits tha