JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 21.3.1999 (Annexure-13) and judgment and order dated 4.10.1999 (Annexure-15) to the writ petition passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.
2. Counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.
4. It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1995 was filed by Akbar Husain against Laiq Ahmad (petitioner) for his eviction from the shop in question and for recovery of arrears of rent, water tax and damages at the rate of Rs. 375 per month. He further claimed pendente lite and future damages till delivery of possession of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The suit was filed with the allegations that the plaintiff purchased the shop in question from Nabi Husain and others through a registered sale deed dated 18.2.1994, along with arrears of rent and water-tax which was due against the defendant from 1.12.1993 to 18.2.1994. The defendant was in occupation of the shop as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 375 excluding water-tax, which was payable to the landlord as part of the rent at the rate of 10 per cent. The plaintiff informed the defendant about the sale of shop in question through a notice, which was served on him. The defendant caused structural alteration in the shop in dispute by breaking the outer lintel and damaging the floor and wall of the shop without the consent of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord served a notice dated 11.11.1994, on the petitioner demanding arrears of rent and by the said notice determined the tenancy also. The notice was served on 16.11.1994 and was replied. However, the tenant neither vacated the shop nor paid the arrears of rent and denied the title of the landlord also.
5. The tenant-petitioner filed written statement admitting that the plaintiff had purchased the shop in dispute through a registered sale deed dated 18.2.1994 and he was occupying the shop as a tenant. He. however, contested the suit on the ground inter alia that late Nabi Husain son of late Ali Husain was the landlord of the shop in question and he was tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 75 which was enhanced to Rs. 100 per month including water-tax and other taxes. He had paid rent upto February, 1994 and obtained receipts also. The tenant had sent the rent to the plaintiff due from 1.3.1994 to 30.11.1994 through money order, which was not accepted. No alteration was made in the shop in dispute. Moreover, he deposited the rent etc. under Section 20 (4) of the U. P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and he was not liable to be evicted.
6. A replication was also filed by the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff examined himself and Nabi Husain and led documentary evidence also.
8. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself and two witnesses. Gul Mohammad and Abid Husain. He also filed documents.
9. After heating the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, learned Judge, Small Causes held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rent of the disputed shop was Rs. 375 per month, as alleged in the plaint, excluding water-tax. It was also held that the tenant was not entitled to get benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act.
10. The tenant filed S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 1999 which was dismissed on 4.10.1999, by respondent No. 2 and the revisional court also upheld the finding of the Judge, Small Causes to the effect that the rent of the disputed shop was Rs. 375 per month and defendant committed default in payment of rent.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the rent of She disputed shop was Rs. 100 per month, which was enhanced from Rs. 75 and both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding the rate of rent. However, no reason has been assigned by the courts below for recording this finding and evidence led by the parlies were not discussed at, all. Thus the finding recorded by the courts below is erroneous in law and there is manifest error of law. The finding suffers from perversity. He has further assailed the impugned judgments on the ground (hat vendor of the shop in question did not transfer his right to recover the arrears of rent due prior to execution of sale deed, i.e., 18.2,1994 and as such, the landlord was not. entitled to recover the arrears of rent which was due upto 18.2.1994, in the suit giving rise to this petition.
12. Reliance was placed by petitioner's counsel on two decisions of Supreme Court in Vasudha Srivastava and others v. Smt. Kamla Chauhan and another, and M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Chuz Pinto and others, AIR 1995 SC 736.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord respondent No. 1 has urged that both the courts below have discussed the oral and 'documentary evidence as well as case law relied upon by the parties in detail and after thorough scanning of the evidence on record disbelieved the petitioner's version and held that the rent of the disputed shop was Rs, 375 per month, as alleged by the landlord and not Rs. 100 as claimed by the petitioner. He, however, admitted that right to recover the arrears of rent due against the petitioner prior to execution of the sale deed was not transferred in favour of the vendee (landlord) and as such, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to recover the arrears of the rent.
14. I have considered the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the entire record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the finding recorded by the courts below regarding monthly rent and period for which the landlord was entitled to get decree for recovery of arrears of rent. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and others v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 ACJ 473, that the revisional court is not. empowered to look into the evidence of the case and to decide whether a finding of fact arrived at by the court below is justified by evidence on record or not. The question of rate of rent is a pure question of fact and the finding recorded on this point by the Judge, Small Causes cannot be challenged in the revisional court. In the facts and circumstances, as noted above, landlord produced two witnesses including himself and on the other hand, petitioner examined three witnesses including himself and parties led documentary evidence also. As mentioned above, both the courts below have discussed the evidence led by the parties at length and after careful scrutiny arrived at a conclusion that the rate of rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 375 per month and not Rs. 100, as alleged by the petitioner, I, therefore, find no perversity or illegality in the finding recorded by the courts below and no case for interference is made out in exercise of writ jurisdiction. So far as amount of arrears of rent is concerned, admittedly, vendor of respondent No. 1 did not give him the right to recover the arrears of rent due upto 18.2.1994 from the tenant- petitioner. In other words, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to have a decree in his favour for recovery of arrears of rent and water-tax for the period commencing from 1.12.1993 to 18.2.1994, i.e., Rs. 1,070.50 p.
15 No other point was pressed in this petition.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, 1 find that this petition has to be allowed partly to the extent, indicated above.
17. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and judgments impugned in this petition are modified to this extent only that the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to recover arrears of rent and water- tax for the period commencing from 1.12.1993 to 19.2.1994, i.e., Rs. 1,070.50 p. However, there will be no order as to costs.