JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is tenants' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent filed by landlord-respondent No. 2 Shri Shyam Sunder, against original tenant Chandra Prakash alias Chamru Ram, who died during the pendency of the suit and was survived by the original petitioners, who were four in numbers. Petitioner No. 1 has also died during pendency of this petition leaving behind only the other three petitioners as her heir and legal representatives and her name has been deleted from the array of the parties. The suit was registered as S.C.C, Suit No. 24 of 1981. Landlord-respondent No. 2 claimed that the tenanted property in dispute belonged to Murli Dasi daughter of Jhinku lal and Shrimati Murli Dasi had transferred the property in dispute to him through registered sale deed dated 18 09.1979. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 2 gave notice about the transfer to the original tenant on 24.10.79 and Shrimati Murli Dasi also gave notice intimating the transfer to the original tenant on 15.10,1979 and 0.12.1979. It was further pleaded that in spite of said notices no rent was paid to landlord-respondent. Original tenant pleaded that the property in dispute initially belonged to Jhinku Lal. who transferred the same in favour of Shri Nath Ji Maharaj (Deity), hence his daughter was not entitled to sell the property as she was not the owner Respondent No. 2 Landlord countered the said assertion and stated that Jhinku Lal executed a Will in favour of the aforesaid Deity on 08.04.1954, however, house in dispute was not included therein and the same was gifted by him to Shrimati Murli Dasi, his daughter through gift deed dated 27.7.1954. It is not disputed that Jhinku Lal received the rent of the property in dispute till his life time and after his death his widow Shrimati Dukhna Devi, mother of Shrimati Murli Dasi received the rent and issued receipts. According to the tenants Jhinku Lal and Shrimati Dukhna Devi received the rent as Sarvarakars of the deity and according to the landlord, they received the rent on behalf of their daughter Shrimati Murli Dasi, as she had been married and was residing in another city along with her husband. Most of the time receipts were issued on printed proforma on which it was printed that it was in respect of rent of the house belonging to Shri Nath Ji Maharaj through Sarvarakar. The explanation of landlord was that merely because receipt was issued on the printed proforma kept for the houses belonging to the Deity it can not be said that the house in dispute also belonged to Deity. According to the landlord, some receipts were issued on plain papers also not mentioning the name of the Deity. Some of such receipts have been annexed as Annexures to the second Supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.11.2005. They pertain to different months of 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1972 issued by Shrimati Dukhna Devi.
3. It is admitted to the landlord that no intimation of Gift deed dated 27.7.1954 executed by Jhinku Lal in favour of his daughter Murli Dasi was given to the original tenant Chandra Prakash
4. The tenant further pleaded that when Shrimati Dukhna Devi refused to accept the rent in 1979, he deposited the same under Section 30 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 and continued to deposit the same till the filing of the suit.
5. The trial court / J.S.C.C. Gorakhpur held that the property belonged to the Deity and even in the absence of a registered document the dedication would be presumed from the conduct of the original owner Jhinku Lal. For the said proposition the trial court placed reliance upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Shri G. Mahraj v. State of Rajasthan . The trial court further held that as Shrimati Murli Dasi was not the owner hence she could not transfer the property to the plaintiff Trial Court further held that rent had been deposited by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act. Accordingly the suit was dismissed through judgement and decree dated 10,3,1986 Against the said judgement and decree landlord-respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 144 of 1986. 1st A.D.J. Gorakhpur through judgement and order dated 31.3.1987 allowed the revision, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, pendentelite and future damages at the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 15/- per month, hence this writ petition by the tenants
6. The revisional Court held that there was no dedication of property to the Deity by Jhinku Lal. Revisional Court also placed reliance upon entries in the Municipal records where house in dispute was not shown to belong to the Deity. Revisional Court further held that Shrimati Dukhna Devi issued some receipts on plain papers also wherein it was not mentioned that property belonged to the Deity. In respect of receipts issued by Jhinku Lal and after his death by his widow on the printed form meant for the houses belonging to the Deity revisional Court held that this by itself could not prove that property was dedicated to the Deity. Revisional Court ultimately held that as the property belonged to Shrimati Murli Dasi and as she had validly sold it to the plaintiff, hence deposit of rent under Section 30 by the tenant in the name of Dukhna Devi was meaningless and of no benefit to the tenant. Revisional Court also held that tenant had denied the title of the landlord. Accordingly suit for eviction was decreed on the ground of default and denial of title.
7. In my opinion, the question as to whether property in dispute belonged to the Deity or not could not finally be decided in these proceedings by the courts below. The said question was only incidentally involved.
8. Under proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act it is provided as under:
Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
9. The facts that some rent receipts were issued on the printed proforma containing the name of the Deity and the admission of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest to the effect that information of Gift deed dated 27.7.1954 executed by Jhinku Lal in favour of Shrimati Murli Dasi was never given to the tenant and that after the death of Jhinku Lal rent was always received by Shrimati Dukhna Devi, mother of Shrimati Murli Dasi, were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of the tenant that the Deity was the owner of the property in dispute and its landlord. It can not be said that tenant had no reason to believe that transfer to the plaintiff was bad as property belonged to the Deity. Accordingly even if it is held that sale deed by Shrimati Murli Dasi in favour of plaintiff dated 18.9.1979 is perfectly legal, still tenant is protected under proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. He deposited the rent in the name of Shrimati Dukhna Devi under Section 30 of the Act, He can not, therefore, be said to be defaulter.
10. As far as the question of denial of title is concerned, the Supreme Court in Sheela v. Firm R.P. Prakash has held that questioning the derivative title does not amount to denial of title. The tenant never denied the title of the person who inducted him as a tenant i.e. Jhinku Lal.
11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Judgement and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Judgement and decree passed by the trial court is restored.
12. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC. 64 that white granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. The house in dispute consists of two rooms and other amenities and is situated in Gorakhpur city which is quite important city of Uttar Pradesh. Rent of Rs. 15/- per month is rather ridiculous by today's standard. It is virtually as well actually no rent. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from May 2006 onward tenant-petitioners shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount shall be payable by the tenants.
13. I have held in the earlier part of this judgement that the question as to whether the property in dispute belonged to the Deity or not could not be decided in the present proceedings giving rise to the instant writ petition If any person is aggrieved by the sale deed dated 18.9.1979 executed by Shrimati Murli Dasi in favour of respondent No. 2, on the ground that the property belonged to the Deity, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in respect thereof if he is otherwise entitled to do so. If such proceedings are initiated impugned judgements shall not be taken in to consideration while deciding the ownership of the property in dispute immediately before the sale deed dated 18.9.1979. However, tenant-petitioners are hence forth not entitled to question the validity of the sale deed dated 18.9.1979. They can not initiate any proceedings for questioning its validity. However, if in any appropriate, competent proceedings it is held that the said sale deed is not valid, then since the date of the said decision tenants should pay the rent to the Deity at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 700/- per month.