JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. The above-mentioned writ petitions relate to the same matter in issue and Involve common questions of law and facts, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.
2. Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Mathur and other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenants and Sri B.K. Saxena, advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 10, landlords.
3. Through these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, passed on 1.4.1991 and the judgment and order dated 26.11.1991, passed by the revisional court, i.e., IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, confirming the judgment and order of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court. The learned courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-landlords for ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the premises bearing No. 493/72 situate at Mausamganj (Daliganj area) in the city of Lucknow.
4. It emerges from record that the petitioners were tenants, occupying shops/kotharls in the above-mentioned building No. 493/72. Mausamganj, Lucknow. Earlier, the said building, shops, ahata etc. were owned by one Sri Anshumali Sood. Later on, the premises rented out to the petitioners was purchased by Smt. Rani Agrawal and others (opposite parties 3 to 10 In these petitions) on 6.5.1987. The petitioners, who have filed these petitions, were paying monthly rent of Rs. 50 to Sri Anshumali Sood. They should have paid rent to opposite parties 3 to 10 as the ownership of the building in question was transferred to them by Sri Anshumali Sood on 6.5.1987. As was pleaded by the present landlords, the petitioner-tenants stopped paying rent after the property was transferred to the new owners. The title of the property, building, shops, ahata etc. was denied by them. Despite service of the legal valid notices, the tenants did not pay the rent to the present landlords and they fell in arrears of rent.
5. It has been brought on record that two notices were sent by the landlords to the tenants; one in June, 1988 and the other a composite notice of demand of rent and ejectment dated 17.8.1988, which was treated to be served on 22.8.1988 by way of refusal. (In some of the petitions, dates of notices differ). On non-compliance of the terms of notices, suits for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment etc. were filed against the petitioner-tenants in October, 1988. The written statements were filed by the tenants denying the title of the landlords [vide para 4 of the written statement). It was admitted in the written statement that the tenants were paying Rs. 50 to the previous landlord Anshumali Sood and the premises was assessed for the said amount in the records of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. However, after filing of the suits, the rent was deposited in Court.
6. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties for their disposal and determination:
(1) Whether the notice was served on the defendant and if it is a valid notice?
(2) Whether the defendant has sublet his tenanted portion to any one without the consent of the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether the defendant had illegally denied the title of the plaintiffs? Effect?
(4) Whether the defendant has committed any default in paying the rent and effect of deposition under Section 20(4) of the Act?
7. Both the courts below, Le., the Judge, Small Causes Court and the revlsional court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and material on record, have come to the conclusion that the composite notice dated 17.8.1988, was a valid legal notice. It was sent through registered post. The postman was produced as a witness before the trial court, who stated that the tenants had refused to accept the said notice. An endorsement to this effect was made on the envelope of the notice. Detailed findings and reasons have, been recorded in the judgment by the trial court while forming its opinion. The revisional court has also given detailed findings, basing its decision on various case-laws as in Harcharan v. Shivrani 1981 ARC (SC) 381; Jagat Narain Mehta v. Madan Lal 1961 ALJ 442 (DB) and Harish Chandra v. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad 1983 (1) ARC 89. The revisional court has also found that the composite notice dated 17.8.1988 was a legal, valid and proper notice.
8. However, the allegation of the landlords that the premises, shops were sublet by the tenants, was found to be incorrect. The factum of subletting without consent was not established.
9. The third issue before the courts below was that of denial of title of the landlords by the petitioner-tenants. It was mentioned in para 4 of the pLalnt that the tenants had denied the title of the pLalntiff-landlords. On the basis of oral evidence of Sri Moti Chand Agrawal, husband of Smt. Rani Agrawal, it was found established that the tenants had refused to pay them rent, saying that they were not the owners of the disputed premises. The landlords were further informed by the petitioner-tenants that the property belonged to Shia Central Waqf Board (for short, S.C.W.B.) which was its real owner. The tenants throughout the litigation before the Judge, Small Causes Court and the revisional court had been laying stress that Smt. Rani Agrawal, her husband Moti Chand Agrawal and their children, etc. were not the owners of the building, ahata, shops in question, etc. However, during litigation they admitted that Sri Anshumali Sood was the previous landlord of the disputed premises. Both the courts below held that the tenants had nowhere denied the factum of sale of the premises by Sri Anshumali Sood to Smt. Rani Agrawal, wife of Sri Moti Chand and other landlords. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court had relied on three documents, papers No. Ga-44, Ga-46 and Ga-92 to conclude that the defendants (tenants) before It had categorically denied the title of the plaintiff-landlords several times in writing. They had failed to prove that their denial was unintentional or bona fide. Both the courts below had found that the story of Issuance of a notice by the S.C.W.B. was not proved. No notice said to be sent by S.C.W.B. was produced before the courts below nor any reasons were assigned for its non-production before them.
10. Both the courts below and this Court have gone through the written statements filed by the petitioner-tenants. For convenience, paras 1 and 4 of the plaint are quoted below:
1. That the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners landlords of the property comprising of ahata and land bearing Municipal No. 493/72, situated at Mausamganj, Lucknow, having purchased the same through 2 registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1987, executed by its previous owner/landlord Shri Anshumali Sood....
4. That the defendant also denying the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the property in suit.
11. The reply submitted by the tenants in their written statements is produced below:
1. That the contents of para 1 of the pLalnt need no reply.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the plaint are denied as wrong and incorrect.
12. In the additional pleas, no further submissions have been made by the tenants on this issue.
13. Both the courts below after examining the material on record came to the conclusion that the denial of title by tenants was not clear, express and specific. In the present case, the landlords had discharged their burden by producing documents and leading the court below through various pleadings before it. Due to denial of title, cause of action had really accrued to the landlords. By mere bald statement and introducing alleged imaginary notice of S.C.W.B., the tenants could not escape from their liability of paying rent and accepting the title of landlords who had purchased the property on 6.5.1987, from Anshumali Sood. Both the courts below after detailed discussions had concluded that the tenants had illegally denied the title of the landlords and they were liable to be evicted under Section 20(2)(f) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
14. The last point regarding default in paying the rent had also gone against the tenants. It was found by both the courts below that the tenants had deposited the entire arrears of rent before the Court after institution of the suits as provided under Section 20(4) of the Act. However, the tenants were held liable to pay the damages to the landlords at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from 22.9.1988 to the date of actual possession of the premises to the landlords.
15. The revisional court has also given a valid finding that under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, the petitioners could not have raised the point of title. The revisional court has passed a well-considered, reasoned and speaking judgment and order dealing with all the points raised before the Judge, Small Causes Court. It has appreciated the fact that in response to the first legal notice issued on 6.6.1988, the tenants had categorically denied the title of the landlords. The reply to the notice dated 6.6.1988 was given in writing. Another composite notice for payment of rent, eviction etc. was sent on 17.8.1988 and on refusal by the tenants to accept it, the landlords approached the Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the tenants. The revisional court had also taken note of the fact that the tenants had never raised any objection in paying rent to Anshumali Sood till 6.5.1987. It was admitted before the courts below that no rent was paid after 6.5.1987 to the present landlords. An unnecessary issue regarding alleged notice of S.C.W.B. was brought for adjudication. The tenants were trying to mislead the court from real issues.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the notices issued by the landlords were not legal and valid, as per provisions of Sections 20(1)(a) and 20(2)(a) of the Act. Both the courts below have gone beyond the pleadings of the parties. The landlords had failed to discharge their burden. The petitioners did not deny the title of the landlords, hence no decree of arrears, damages and eviction could be passed against them. The landlord opposite parties 3 to 10 could not clarify the position and remove the doubts even during the Court proceedings as to who was the landlord of the premises by operation of law. It was not clear as to whom rent was payable by the petitioners. In fact the landlords had acted mala fidely and dishonestly and the courts below have ignored this fact. There was no justification for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited Mohd. Alim v. Mohd. Abrar and Ors. 1989 (1) ARC 329; Pradeep Gautam and Anr. v. VIIIth Additional District Judge (Judge, S.C.C.) Allahabad and Anr. 1993 (1) ARC 44 and Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 2002 (47) ALR 415, in support of their submissions. Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned senior advocate has highlighted the facts that there was no subletting of the premises; the opposite parties 3 to 10 were not having title over the land in question and the rent was paid to the actual landlord by the tenants. He has Lald stress on the fact that the premises was a waqf property and a notice was sent to the opposite parties 3 to 10 on 29.7.1988 by one Sri Nawab Mirza, by which they were asked to hand over the possession of the property to S.C.W.B. According to the learned Counsel, this fact has to be appreciated by the courts below.
17. Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for landlord opposite parties 3 to 10 has resisted the writ petitions. At the outset, he has led stress that both the courts below, i.e., the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow and the revisional court (IXth Additional District Judge, Lucknow) have recorded concurrent findings of facts after appreciation of the material on record and have held that the petitioner-tenants had failed to pay rent to the actual landlord. It was a clear case of denial of title of the landlord by the tenants. The petitioner-tenants have admitted that they were paying rent to Sri Anshumali Sood till 6.5.1987 and no question arises of S.C.W.B. being introduced as landlord by the tenants. The petitioners have cooked up a false and fabricated story during litigation to give a colour to the real issue and avoid payment of rent to the new landlords. The petitioners were paying a meagre rent, i.e., Rs. 50 per month for the shops/kotharis situate in busy central area of Lucknow, i.e., Daliganj area. They had refused to pay even this meagre rent to the landlords. Proper notices were given by the counsel for the landlords which were found to be served on them. Sri B.K. Saxena has read the provisions of Sections 20(4), 20(f) and 20(8) of the Act to demonstrate that the tenants had failed to comply with the legal provisions. On several occasions, they had denied the title of the landlords with illegal motive. The landlords were ready to accept the rent. Once the suit is filed and the landlords have accepted the rent, the question of waiver as of law is not provided; it has to be ignored. Admittedly, the petitioner-tenants had paid rent upto 6.5.1987. The suits were filed in October, 1988, i.e.. after about one year and five months when the petitioner-tenants had fallen in arrears. The petitioners were liable to be evicted on the ground of denial of title and as such the suits for eviction were filed. There existed several grounds for eviction of the tenants. Sri Saxena has relied upon Narain Das Khanna v. Dr. Jawahar Lal Bhatla 1982 (2) ARC 1 and Ram Avtar Goel v. Jagannath Gupta and Ors. 1997 (2) ARC 286 in support of his submissions.
18. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. In the present case, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts in allowing the suits of the landlords for eviction of the petitioner-tenants and awarded damages, etc. It is amply clear from the records that the petitioners were issued valid legal notices by Sri M.S. Kotwal and Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the landlords. The tenants were made known by the legal notices that the opposite parties 3 to 10 had purchased the property bearing No. 493/72 situate at Mausamganj (Daliganj area) in the city of Lucknow on 6.5.1987 by executing two registered sale deeds from its previous owner Sri Anshumali Sood, son of Dr. A. C. Sood. It was also indicated in the notices that the shops/kotharis were sublet and in spite of the demand and request made by the landlords, the tenants had failed to pay the entire arrears of rent with effect from 6.5.1987. It was clearly indicated In the legal notice sent on 17.8.1988 that the tenants had denied the title of the landlords. I have carefully gone through the contents of said notices and the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the revisional court on the validity of said legal notices. Both the learned courts below, after going through the documentary evidence, i.e., papers No. Ga-6, Ga-7, Ga-21 and perusing the statements of Sri R.K. Saini postman and Sri Motilal Agrawal, husband of owner landlord Smt. Rani Agrawal have held that the registered notices were sent but the tenants had refused to receive the same and therefore, the postman had put in an endorsement to that effect on the envelope of the notices. The endorsement was proved by the postman in the Court. The language of notice Ga-6 effectively and sufficiently communicated the intention of the landlords regarding the matter in issue. The revisional court has also dealt with the issue of validity of notices and service of the same on the tenants in detail. The relevant case-laws as indicated in the foregoing paras of this Judgment have been appreciated by the revisional court and detailed findings have been given and I find no error in its conclusion that the landlords had sent legal, valid notices, which were refused to accept by the tenants.
20. In the present case, a statement on oath has been recorded regarding ownership of the premises. The tenants were duly informed about the change of ownership of the premises in question, an event which took place on 6.5.1987. When the rent was not paid for more than one year and four months, the landlords had sent notices and thereafter the suits were filed for eviction, etc. before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow. I have gone through the plaints and the written statements. The petitioners have not made specific denial of the fact regarding change of ownership, etc. The pleas taken by the landlords stood unrebutted. Moreover, a strange theory has been introduced during litigation that the property in question belongs to S.C.W.B. while the tenants were admittedly paying rent to Sri Anshumall Sood. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that the alleged notice of S.C.W.B. seeking rent from the petitioners alleging itself to be their landlord has never been produced before the Court. The tenants had failed to establish before the courts below and this Court that the S.C.W.B. was the landlord of the premises. No details have been given. It appears that for the first time, this plea was taken when the landlord opposite parties 3 to 10 had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of denial of title and for non-payment of the rent. This plea appears to have been invented by the tenants with illegal and dishonest motive. Both the courts below, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence have rightly concluded that the tenants had denied the title of the landlords and the cause of action had really accrued to them the moment despite legal notice the tenants declined to pay rent and refused to recognize the opposite parties 3 to 10 as their owner landlords. The findings and conclusions drawn by both the learned courts below are supported by relevant material, oral and documentary evidence. The judgments rendered by them are well-considered and well-reasoned and require no interference by this Court. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to above are not relevant in the present set of circumstances. Here, the tenants have failed to set up title in themselves or in a third party (i.e., S.C.W.B.). It was proved before the courts below and in this Court that the opposite parties 3 to 10 had purchased the property by execution of two registered sale deeds on 6.5.1987 from Sri Anshumali Sood. The tenants had admitted in their statements before the courts below that they were earlier tenants of Sri Anshumali Sood and now the plaintiffs, present landlords are the owners of the premises. It was also admitted by them that no monthly rent was ever paid to S.C.W.B. Thus, the tenants could not in clear and unequivocal terms, set up the title in some other person or S.C.W.B. or in themselves. They failed to make out a case even before this Court which is hearing this bunch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below vide Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 (1) ARC 613 (SC); 2004 (2) SCCD 890 : 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) and Abdul Nairn Quraishi v. Massiuddin Khan 2005 (1) ARC 316 : 2005 (2) AWC 1260.
21. In view of above, the judgments and orders rendered by both the courts below, Impugned in this bunch of petitions, do not call for any interference. The writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed with costs. The judgments and orders passed by the learned courts below on 1.4.1991 and 26.11.1991 shall become operative forthwith. The petitioners shall vacate the premises In their occupation and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the landlords, opposite parties 3 to 10 within one month from today. They shall also pay arrears of rent, damages etc. within the stipulated period as directed by the courts below.