AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.U. Khan, J.
This writ petition has been filed by a person whom plaintiff/respondentlandlord claimed to be subtenant while he himself claimed that he was not residing in the accommodation in dispute. Landlordrespondents 3 to 5 filed suit for eviction against Respondent No. 6 Bipul Chand and petitioner Tipul Chand (since deceased and survived by legal representatives). In the suit it was alleged that Respondent No. 6 was chieftenant and he had sublet the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner. Accommodation in dispute was in the nature of Dalan. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was never tenant of the termination in dispute. Suit was registered as case (SCC Suit) No. 7 of 1981, JSCC, Fatehpur dismissed the suit on 25101985 on the ground that notice of accommodation of tenancy was invalid. Landlords filed SCC Revision No. 129 of 1985. IInd A.D.J., Fatehpur on 411986 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit with cost for ejectment of the respondents and for recovery of Rs. 180/ as arrears of rent and pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 5/ per month. This writ petition is directed against the said order of the Revisional Court dated 411986.
The Court enquired from the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why this writ petition had been filed by the petitioner when according to him he was never in possession of the property in dispute. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was mainly aggrieved by award of damages. Learned Counsel for landlordrespondent Shri K.S. Chauhan clearly stated that landlords were ready to give up their right to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner (which term includes the legal representatives).
In view of the above it is not necessary to decide the correctness of the main point decided by the Court below.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. Decree for recovery of rent and damages against petitioner is set aside. Decree for eviction is maintained. In case petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute then they shall at once be evicted therefrom alongwith Respondent No. 6 through process of the Court.