Sultan vs First Additional District Judge and Others

M.P. Mehrotra, J.—This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972).

The facts, in brief, are these. The Respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the Petitioner for the latter''s eviction from a shop. The suit for eviction was dismissed but the other relief claimed, namely for arrears of rent was decreed by the trial court by its judgment dated 2-11-76, a true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, a revision was filed and the same was allowed by the revisional court by its judgment dated 4-10-79, a certified copy of which is on the record.

Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in sup port thereof, I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In opposition the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has made his submissions.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the lower revisional court committed a jurisdictional error in holding that there was implied surrender of tenancy by the other heirs of the deceased tenant Zahur Ahmad. He placed reliance on the provisions of Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 wherein a tenant has been defined and it is laid down that on the tenant''s death, in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs will be treated as the tenants of such non-residential building. It should be seen that the death of Zahur Ahmad in the instant case occurred some time in 1967 and, therefore, it is no use adverting to the said definition. However, even apart from the said definition it was contended that in law all the heirs will inherit the tenancy of the deceased tenant. That will be so but it has to be seen that the revisional court placed reliance'' on two circumstances to come to the conclusion that there was implied surrender of tenancy. It is clear that alter the death of Zahur Ahmad, it was the Petitioner alone who paid the rent and obtained receipts which were given in his name. Then the revisional court emphasised that u/s 30 of the New Act the deposite was made by the Petitioner as the tenant of the accommodation in question. It was never given out that the Petitioner had certain other co-tenants also on whose behalf he was acting. It is obvious that for a long duration stretching from December, 1967 upto 1976, the other heirs of the deceased tenant never stirred in the matter and the Petitioner only sought to utilise them when the suit for his eviction was filed. In my view, the revisional court was entitled to come to its finding that there was implied surrender of tenancy in the instant case. In any case, there is no question of interfering in this case because no jurisdictional error was committed by the revisional court.

This petition is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.