JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two writ petitions arising out of similar set of facts raises common questions of law, therefore, were heard and decided together by this common order.
2. The petitioners-defendants filed these writ petitions against the judgment and order passed by the revisional coourt whereby the revislonal court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners- defendants against the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under.
3. Dr. Subodh Mohan, arrayed as respondent No. I in these two writ petitions filed S.C.C. Suit bearing No. 1 of 2002 against Rakesh Kakkar and S.C. C. Suit No. 2 of 2002 against Kunwar Baldeo for ejectment of the tenants-petitioners in the writ petition who were arrayed as defendants in these two suits with the allegation that respondent No. 1 in this writ petition is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute by virtue of a decree passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999, Dhanendra Mohan v. Suresh Chandra Agrawal, 'dated 30.5.2001, wherein the accommodation in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff as a result of the partition of the Hindu undivided family and the petitioners-defendants were the tenant in the disputed accommodation according to "the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the Suit No. 1 of 2002 the rent payable by the tenants was at the rate of Rs. 272 per month and in the Suit No. 2 of 2002, Rs. 198 per month. Since the tenants have paid rent upto 30th September, 1999 and with effect from 1.10.1999, the rent was not paid, therefore, a notice of demand" was sent stating therein that the plaintiff is the owner by virtue of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 and that the tenants are in arrears of rent beyond 30.9,1999 and notice directed that within one month from the date of receipt of the notice if the arrears are not paid the tenancy shall be deemed to have terminated. This notice was individually served on the tenants on 11th December, 2001 and the petitioners-tenants replied to the said notice on 13th December, 2001, denying therein that the plaintiff is the owner and the landlord of the accommodation in dispute and further that they were in arrears of rent, therefore, they termed the suit as mischievous and frivolous and tenants have also set up the case that Smt. Shashi Agarwal was the landlord of the disputed accommodation and they are liable to pay the rent to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. They further alleged that they have paid rent to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. With regard to the decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999, they have said that this decree is nullity and they are not bound by this decree. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as six issues and heard the parties counsel at length after parties adduced the evidence as it is clear from the detailed order passed by the trial court.
4. Regarding issue No. 1 as to whether the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the disputed property, the trial court recorded finding that Smt. Shashi Agarwal was no doubt realising the rent but the property belong to undivided Hindu family and by virtue of partition decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 the accommodation in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff. After 30.9.1999 or after filing of the suit neither Smt. Shashi Agarwal has realised any rent nor any rent was paid to Smt. Shashi Agarwal. Smt. Shashi Agarwal as well as the plaintiff informed the respective tenants including petitioners in these writ petitions, that the plaintiff is landlord and owner of the accommodation In dispute and is entitled to realise the rent. Thereupon individual notice was given by the plaintiff to the tenants demanding the arrears of rent beyond 30 the September, 1999, since the rent and arrears were not paid, the tenancy stand terminated.
5. Regarding issue No. 2 as to whether there was any partition in the undivided Hindu family, the trial court answered that the property originally belongs to undivided Hindu family which was partitioned by virtue of the decree dated 30.5.2001, passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 and the accommodation in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff. The said partition has been held to be valid as the same has been accepted by all members of the family including Smt. Shashl Agarwal and no party to partition suit challenged the decree.
6. Regarding question of default it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners-tenants have not paid any rent to the plaintiff, therefore, the trial court recorded finding that they have committed default.
7. The further issue that as to whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the finding is against the petitioner-tenants and In favour of the plaintiff.
8. Regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants, it is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Shashi Agarwal was originally landlady of the disputed accommodation and the petitioners-defendants were tenant and after passing of the decree in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 the plaintiff has become the owner and landlord of the disputed accommodation, therefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
9. The next Issue as to whether the defendants are liable to be evicted on accepting the plaintiff to be the landlord of the disputed accommodation, the trial court answered the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants- petitioners.
10. The suit, therefore, was decreed for ejectment and arrears of rent. Aggrieved thereby the defendants-petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. Precisely the same arguments were advanced by the petitioners before the revisional court. The revisional court after discussing the evidence on record and also hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the revision. Thus, these writ petitions.
11. Before this Court, the petitioners have argued that a notice to terminate the tenancy on the ground of determination of the tenancy was bad because it does not give any reason for determination of tenancy. Against this counsel for the respondent No. 1 landlord relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court In Ahmad All v. Mohd. Jamal Uddin, 1963 ALJ 567, wherein this Court has held that mere recital in the notice that "your tenancy is terminated" is held to be valid notice for termination of tenancy without assigning any reason.
12. In view of the Division Bench decision in, Ahmad Ali (supra), the objection to the notice cannot be accepted as argued on behalf of the petitioners. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners-tenant denied the title of the respondent- plaintiff. The trial court having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute and mere denial of the title is sufficient for ejectment of the tenants as held by this Court in a case in Dr. Bhupeshwar Sahi and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr., 1988 (1) ARC, It Is then contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff-landlord the suit is barred by Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 and in fact, the trial court should have returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Budhu Mai v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors., 1988 (2) ARC 260, wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"10. It is true that Section 23 does not make it obligatory on the Court of Small Causes to invariably return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant. It is also true that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge Small Causes in this behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that in enacting Section 23 the Legislature must have had in contemplation some cases in which the discretion to return the plaint ought to be exercised in order to do complete justice between the parties. On the facts of the instant case we feel that these are such cases in which in order to do complete justice between the parties the plaints ought to have been returned for presentation to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. In case the plea set up by the appellants that by the deed dated 8th December, 1966, the benefit arising out of immovable property which itself constituted immovable property was transferred and in pursuance of the information conveyed in this behalf by Mahabir Prasad to them the appellants started paying rent to Smt. Sulochna Devi and that the said deed could not be unilaterally cancelled, is accepted it is likely not only to affect the title of Mahabir Prasad to realise rent from the appellants but will also have the effect of snapping even the relationship of landlord and tenant, between Mahabir Prasad and the appellants which could not be revived by the subsequent unilateral cancellation by Mahabir Prasad of the said deed dated 8th December, 1966. In that event it may not be possible to treat the suits filed by Mahabir Prasad against the appellants to be suits between landlord and tenant simpliciter based on contract of tenancy in which an issue of title was incidentally raised. If the suits cannot be construed to be one between landlord and tenant they would not be cognizable by a court of small causes and it is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that these are such cases where the plaints ought to have been returned for presentation to appropriate court so that none of the parties was prejudiced."
13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case since Smt. Shashi Agarwal has never accepted any rent from the tenants-petitioners during the pendency of the Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 or after the suit was decreed for partition, the property in dispute fell into share of the plaintiff, she herself gave a notice informing the tenants that now the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 is the owner and the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff also gave a notice informing the petitioners of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 and demanding rent from them. The aforesaid decision relied by learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the present case particularly when tenant-petitioners denied the title of the plaintiff- respondent and his right to realise the rent for the accommodation in question.
14. The other case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is in JT 2002 (2) SC 536, wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"16. After the creation of the tenancy if the title of landlord is transferred or devolves upon a third person, the tenant is not estopped from denying such title. However, if the tenant having been apprised of the transfer, assignment or devolution of rights acknowledges the title of transferee either expressly or by paying rent to him, the rule of estoppel once again comes into operation for It is unjust to allow tenant to approbate and reprobate and so long as the tenant enjoys everything which his lease purports to grant how does it concern him what the title of the lessor is (See Tej Bhan Madan v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 137). A denial of title which falls foul of the rule of estoppel contained In Section 116 of Evidence Act is considered in law a malicious act on the part of the tenant as it is detrimental to the interest of the landlord and does no good to the lessee himself. However, It has to be borne in mind that since the consequences of applying the rule of determination by forfeiture of tenancy as a result of denial of_ landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant are very serious, the denial or disclaimer must be in clear and unequivocal terms (See Majati Subbarao u. P. V. K. Krishna Rao (deceased) by L.Rs.. (1989) 4 SCC 732 ; Kundan Mai v. Gurudutta, (1989) 1 SCC 552 and Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, (supra). We may quote with advantage the law as stated by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Hatimullah and Ors. v. Mahamad Abju Choudhary, AIR 1928 Cal 312. It was held, "the principle of forfeiture by disclaimer is that where the tenant denies the landlords' title to recover rent from him bona fide on the ground of seeking Information of such title or having such title established in a court of law in order to protect himself he is not to be charged with disclaiming the landlord's title. But where the disclaimer is done not with this object but with an express repudiation of the tenancy under the landlord it would operate as forfeiture."
15. In the present case, since both. Smt. Shashi Agarwal and the plaintiff have given notice to the defendants-petitioners of the decree dated 30.5.2001, passed in Original Suit No. 817 of 1999 and informed them that after family partition the disputed accommodation fell into share of the plaintiff and thereafter that only plaintiff claimed rent, therefore, denial of the title by the defendants cannot be said to be bona fide.
16. In this view of the matter, this decision will also not help the petitioner. No other argument was advanced. In view of the fact that both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact which cannot said to be suffering from any error much less error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed.