JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner before this Court, in the present Writ Petition, is a tenant, wherein, he has put to challenge, the impugned judgments dated 4th September, 2016, which has been rendered in SCC Revision No. 21 of 1996, Paniram vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, and as a consequence thereto, it has resulted into an affirmation of judgment and decree dated 16th April, 1996, which has been rendered by the Judge, Small Causes Courts in SCC Suit No. 15 of 1989, Smt. Bhagwati Devi vs. Paniram.

2. The brief facts, which engages consideration in the present Writ Petition, are that the respondent/landlord had filed a SCC Suit on 28th July, 1989, for the purposes of seeking an eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the tenement, in question, which was more appropriately described at the foot of the plaint, as to be;

constituting to be a residential accommodation of two rooms, over which, the tenancy was created by the erstwhile landlord, late Mr. Kali Ram, who had divested the property to the respondent/landlord, by will, executed in her favour on 17.11.1974.

3. The contention in the plaint, as raised by the landlord, was to the effect that the tenancy with the petitioner commenced from 1973, and as the petitioner/tenant since has committed a default in the remittance of the rent ever since 1982, which the landlord had contended and claimed to be payable @ 25/- p.m., hence, by virtue of a registered notice issued on 16.06.1989, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the respondent No.3, the landlord has terminated the tenancy, and since the default was alleged to have been committed for the sufficient long period, the rent, which was claimed to be payable by virtue of the notice of 16.06.1989, was for a period of three years; preceding the date of notice i.e. dated 16.06.1989, which was admittedly, as per the records was served upon the petitioner on 21st June, 1989.

4. On institution of the Suit, in question, on 28.07.1989, the petitioner had put in appearance and filed his written statement by way of paper No. 18-Ga on 4th November, 1989, which was later on also amended by him at a much belated stage on 8th June, 1996, i.e. almost after seven years of proceedings, attempting to deny the valid initiation of the proceedings of the SCC Suit, as instituted on 28th July, 1989, on the pretext that the proceedings of the SCC Suit No.15 of 1989, Smt. Bhagwati Devi vs. Paniram, would not be sustainable on the ground that the petitioner in the written statement had contended that since there was an agreement for sale, which was executed by the predecessor of the plaintiff, i.e. late Mr. Kali Ram, agreeing to sell the property on 3rd Janu