# Banke Lal Agrawal v. Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 518
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-06
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 2359 of 2015
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/banke-lal-agrawal-v-smt-dr-mithilesh-bansal-ors-45098
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 13 of
1972) - Eviction - S. 20(2)(f) - Ingredients of
denial of title by a tenant - there must be
clear denial of title of the landlord by the
tenant - tenant's bona fide calling upon his/
her landlord/landlady to prove his/ her
ownership or putting the landlord/ landlady
to prove his/ her title so as to protect
himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a
protection made available to him by Rent
Control Law but without disowning his
character of possession over the tenancy
premises as tenant cannot be said to have
denied the title of his/ her landlord/
landlady or disclaimed the tenancy. (Para 16
& 17)

B. Rent Control Law - Eviction - Principle
of forfeiture by disclaimer - where the
tenant denies the landlord's title to
recover rent from him bona-fide on the
ground of seeking information of such
title or having such title established in
Court in order to protect himself - tenant
is not to be charged with disclaiming the
landlord's title - But where the disclaimer
is done with an express repudiation of
the tenancy under the landlord, it would
operate as forfeiture - Where after
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. (Para 18)

Held - Defendant-petitioner/tenant has not
denied the title of the landlady & deposited
entire rent on the first date of hearing and
continued to deposit/ pay rent to the plaintiffrespondent/ landlady - Finding of the court
below on the ground of denial of title of the
plaintiff respondent as a ground for eviction
from the disputed shop, set aside. (Para 21)

Matter Under Article 227 allowed. (E-5)
List of cases cited: -

## Text

518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending, then, it is obvious that the subordinate
court
must
restrain
from
proceeding further.

13. This Court, in present scenario of
pendency of cases at Trial court level, has issued
Circulars Letters, on its administrative side that
unless specifically proceeding is being stayed by
superior
courts,
including,
High
Court,
proceedings at Trial court, are not to be stayed.
Hence, this argument of learned counsel for
applicants is also not tenable.

14. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being devoid of
merits, deserves dismissal and it stands
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)1ILR 518

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2359 of 2015

Banke Lal Agrawal ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Dinesh Kumar, Sri
Nirvikar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abu Bakht, Sri Abhitab Agarwal, Sri
P.K. Jain

A. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 13 of
1972) - Eviction - S. 20(2)(f) - Ingredients of
denial of title by a tenant - there must be
clear denial of title of the landlord by the
tenant - tenant's bona fide calling upon his/
her landlord/landlady to prove his/ her
ownership or putting the landlord/ landlady
to prove his/ her title so as to protect
himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a
protection made available to him by Rent
Control Law but without disowning his
character of possession over the tenancy
premises as tenant cannot be said to have
denied the title of his/ her landlord/
landlady or disclaimed the tenancy. (Para 16
& 17)

B. Rent Control Law - Eviction - Principle
of forfeiture by disclaimer - where the
tenant denies the landlord's title to
recover rent from him bona-fide on the
ground of seeking information of such
title or having such title established in
Court in order to protect himself - tenant
is not to be charged with disclaiming the
landlord's title - But where the disclaimer
is done with an express repudiation of
the tenancy under the landlord, it would
operate as forfeiture - Where after
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. (Para 18)

Held - Defendant-petitioner/tenant has not
denied the title of the landlady & deposited
entire rent on the first date of hearing and
continued to deposit/ pay rent to the plaintiffrespondent/ landlady - Finding of the court
below on the ground of denial of title of the
plaintiff respondent as a ground for eviction
from the disputed shop, set aside. (Para 21)

Matter Under Article 227 allowed. (E-5)
List of cases cited: -

1. Keshar Bai Vs Chhunulal (2014) 11 SCC 438

2. Sheela Vs Firm Prhlad Rai Prem Prakash
(2002)
3
SCC
375
1 All. Banke Lal Agrawal Vs. Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal & Ors.
519
3. J.J. Lal Pvt Ltd. & ors Vs M.R. Murli & Anr
AIR 2002 SC 1061

4. Sheikh Abdulla Vs Mohammad Muslim 1926
AIR (Cal.) 1205

5. Sugga Bai Vs Hiralal, 1969 AIR (MP) 32

6. 1937 AIR (PC) 251

7. Arif Vs IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh
& Ors 1984 (2) ARC 255 (All)

8. Dr. A.S. Raj Vs District Judge, Lucknow & ors
1982 ARC 515 (All)

9. Ram Autar Goel Vs Jagannath Gupta & Anr
1998 (2) AWC 828

10. Pradeep Gautam & anr Vs VIIIth Add District
Judge (Judge, SCC) Alld & anr 1993 (1) ARC 44

11. Brij Bhushan Mishra Vs Surita Sarbabdhikari
2009 (74) All.LR 266

12. Jalsabh Shaikh Vs State of Goa AIR 2000
(SC) 568

13. Sahaj Ram Vs Rajednra Prasad 2016 (6)
ADJ 626

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

"Ingredients of denial of title by a
tenant so as to attract Section 20(2)(f) of
U.P. Act XIII of 1972, is the main
question involved in the present petition."

FACTS:-

1. Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned
counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioner
and Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior advocate
assisted by Sri Abhitab Agarwal, learned
counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that the disputed house situate at
Azad Chowk, Main Bazar, Qasba Jevar,
District
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
was
originally owned by Sri Mahesh Chand
father of the plaintiff-respondent No.1
Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal resident of
Qasba
Palwal,
District
Faridabad
(Haryana), which was purchased by Sri
Mahesh Chand by a registered sale deed
dated 04.08.1966 from one Sri Babu Ram
and another. According to the plaintiffrespondent No.1, the purchase of the house
was benami. That apart, in her marriage on
03.02.1981, her father Mahesh Chand had
gifted the house to her which she accepted.
But despite this fact, her father Mahesh
Chand entered into some rent deed in his
own name. Therefore, she filed declaratory
Suit No.28 of 1984 (Smt. Mithilesh Bansal
vs. Mahesh Chand and another) which was
decreed by judgment dated 09.04.1984 and
decree dated 21.05.1984 under Order VIII
Rule
10,
C.P.C.
on
the
basis
of
compromise.
Thus,
the
plaintiffrespondent No.1 became owner and
landlord of the disputed shop.

3. The defendant-petitioner was a
tenant of the disputed shop. According to
the
plaintiff-respondent
No.1,
the
defendant-tenant sent a notice dated
28.01.1985 through counsel Mohd. Iqbal
Khan to the plaintiff's father Mahesh
Chand by registered post stating that the
rent from 01.04.1983 is not being accepted
so as to cause harassment and, therefore,
notice is being given to accept the rent and
issue a rent receipt. According to the
plaintiff, this notice was replied by her
father Mahesh Chand to the defendanttenant by reply dated 12.03.1985 followed
by letter dated 12.03.1985 by registered
post whereby Mahesh Chand stated that it
was earlier notified and made clear to the
defendant-tenant that the shop is now
owned by the plaintiff-respondent No.1,
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Mithilesh Bansal in view of the
judgment and decree passed by the Munsif
Khurja in O.S. No.28 of 1984 and,
therefore, the previous and future rent be
paid to the owner and landlady Smt.
Mithilesh Bansal.

4. According to the plaintiffrespondent No.1, despite intimation of the
shop in question to be owned by her, the
defendant-tenant has not paid any rent.
Subsequently, he filed an Injunction Suit
No.267 of 2006 (Banke Lal Agarwal vs.
Mahesh Chand). In paragraph-1 of the
plaint of O.S. No.267 of 2006, the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner stated, as
under:-

^^1- ;g fd oknh fuEu of.kZr nqdku
ftls uD'kk okn i= esa 'kCn v c l n ls
fn[kk;k x;k gS] dk fdjk;snkj izfroknh dh vksj
ls fiNys 50 o"kZ ls vf/kd ls pyk vk jgk gSA^^

5. The averments of paragraph-1 of the
plaint of O.S. No.267 of 2006 were denied by
Mahesh Chand (father of the plaintiffrespondent No.1 No.1) in paragraph-1 of his
written statement. Thereafter, in paragraphs-11
and 22 of the written statement in O.S. No.267
of 2006, the aforesaid Mahesh Chand has
stated, as under:-

^^11- ;g fd okn i= dh /kkjk 1 dk
dFku xyr gS vLohdkj gSA oknh of.kZr leifRr
dk izfroknh dk fdjk;snkj ugha gSA oju fnukad
01-04-1983 ls iz'uxr leifRr dh ekfyd
Jhefr feFkys'k caly gSA fnukad 31-03-1983 rd
oknh iz'uxr nqdku dk Lokeh Fkk rc rd dk
fdjk;k oknh ls izfroknh us izkIr fd;k FkkA
mlds ckn iz'uxr leifRr dh ekfyd Jhefr
feFkys'k caly gks x;hA blfy;s izfroknh }kjk
fnukad 31-03-1983 ds ckn u rks oknh ls dksbZ
fdjk;k izkIr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ jlhn gh
izkIr dh x;hA vkSj u gh izfroknh dks fdjk;k
oknh }kjk iznku fd;k x;kA^^

^^22- ;g fd oknh }kjk fnukad 28-011985 dks vius vf/koDrk Jh bdcky vgen
,MoksdsV ls izfroknh dks uksfVl fdjk;k fy;s
tkus gsrq fHktok;k x;k FkkA ftldk mRrj
izfroknh us oknh ds vf/koDrk Jh bdcky vgen
,MoksdsV dks fnuakd 12-03-1985 dks izkIr djk;k
ftlesa Li"V crk;k x;k Fkk fd iz'uxr leifRr
dh ekfyd izfroknh ugha jgk cfYd okn la0 28
lu 1984 U;k;ky; eqaflQ [kqtkZ ds fu.kZ; ,oa
fMdzh vkns'k fnukad 09-04-1984 ds vuqlkj
Jhefr feFkys'k caly gks x;hA mRrj esa ;g Hkh
Li"V :i ls fy[kk x;k Fkk fd fiNyk fdjk;k
,oa Hkfo"; esa fdjk;k Jhefr feFkys'k caly dks
vnk djsaA izfroknh fnukad 31-03-2003 ds ckn ls
ckngq fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 09-04-1984 ds
ckn ls iz'uxr nqdku leifRr dk ekfyd ugha
gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh }kjk izfroknh dks
vkfFkZd] ekufld] lkekftd {kfr dkfjr djus ds
mn~ns'; ls rFkk vius fdlh fNis gq, LokFkZ ls
oknh us izfroknh ds fo:) mDr okn ;ksftr
fd;k gS ftldk mls dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA^^

6. According to the plaintiffrespondent No.1, since the rent was not
being paid and the defendant-tenant/
petitioner has denied her title as per aforequoted paragraph-1 of the plaint of O.S.
No.267 of 2006, therefore, after notice, she
filed S.C.C. Suit No.5 of 2007 (Dr.
Mithilesh Bansal vs. Banke Lal Agarwal).
In paragraphs-8 and 11 of the plaint of
S.C.C. Suit No.5 of 2007, the plaintiffrespondent No.1 has stated, as under:

^^8- ;g fd izfroknh fdjk;k vnk
djus esa l[r uknsfgUn gS vkSj lkFk gh mlus
mDr of.kZr nqdku ls okfnuh ds LokfeRo ls Hkh
badkj fd;k gS blfy;s okfnuh ukfylh gSA^^

^^11- ;g fd okn dk dkj.k loZizFke
fnukad 9-4-84 dks tcfd okfnuh mDr of.kZr
nqdku dh Hkou Lokeh U;k;ky; eqaflQ [kqtkZ
}kjk okn la[;k 28@1984 esa ?kksf"kr gqbZ] ckngw
izR;sd vaxszth eghuk dh igyh rkjh[k dks tc
fd izfroknh ij mDr of.kZr nqdku dk fdjk;k
okftc gqvk rFkk ckngw tcfd izfroknh us
1 All. Banke Lal Agrawal Vs. Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal & Ors.
521
ewyokn la[;k 267@06 esa mDr of.kZr nqdku ls
okfnuh ds LokfeRo dks badkj fd;k rFkk nqdku
esa okfnuh dks viuk Hkou Lokeh ugha dgk rFkk
vfUre :i ls uksfVl fnukad 21-3-2007 dh 30
fnu dh vof/k lekIr gks tkus ds i'pkr bl
U;k;ky; dh lhek ds vUrxZr mRiUu gqvk ,oa
U;k;ky; dks okn dks lquus o mls fu.khZr djus
dk gd gkfly gSA^^

7.

Contents
of
afore-quoted
paragraph-8 of the plaint of S.C.C. Suit
No.05 of 2007 were denied by the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner in paragraphs8 and 11 of his written statement, as
under:-

^^ 8- ;g fd okn i= dh /kkjk 8 dk
dFku xyr gS] vr% vLohdkj gSA izfroknh
fdjk;k vnk djus esa gfxZt Hkh uknsfgUn ugha gSA
izfroknh ls fookfnr nqdku dk fdjk;k egs'k
pUn iq= jketh yky }kjk 31-03-2006 rd dk
nLrh izkIr dj fy;k x;k gSA izfroknh }kjk
oknuh ds fookfnr nqdku ds LokfeRo ls dHkh Hkh
bUdkj ugha fd;k x;kA^^

11- ;g fd okn i= dh /kkjk 11 dk
dFku xyr gS] vr% vLohdkj gSA oknuh dks
dHkh dksbZ okn dk dkj.k izfroknh ds fo:) okn
nk;j djus dk iSnk ugha gqvkA^^

8. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 has
also alleged in her plaint that rent has not
been
paid
by
the
defendant-tenant/
petitioner. She waived her right for earlier
rent and claimed the rent of only three
years amounting to Rs.4,809/-.

9. On the first date of hearing, the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner deposited the
entire demanded rent and claimed the
benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of
1972.

10. The aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No.5 of
2007 was decreed by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 04.01.2013
passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Small Cause
Court, Gautam Budh Nagar on the finding
that the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has
denied the title of the plaintiff-landlady/
respondent No.1 and thus, provisions of
Section 20(2)(f) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972
stood attracted. So far as questions of
payment of rent and the benefit of Section
20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 are
concerned, they were decided in favour of
the
defendant-tenant/
petitioner
and
against the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The
aforesaid judgment was challenged by the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner in S.C.C.
Revision No.01 of 2013 (Banke Lal
Agarwal vs. Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal),
which
has
been
dismissed
by
the
impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015
passed by the Additional District Judge -
IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar. Aggrieved with
the
aforesaid
two
judgments,
the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner has filed the
present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS:-

11. Learned counsel for the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner submits as
under:

(i) Both the courts below have
held that there was no default. Both the
courts
below
have
found
that
the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner is entitled for
the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act
XIII
of
1972
inasmuch
as
he
unconditionally
deposited
the
entire
demanded amount of rent etc. and interest
on the first date of hearing.

(ii)
The
defendant-tenant/
petitioner has never denied the title of the
plaintiff-landlady/ respondent No.1.

(iii) The finding of the courts
below in the impugned judgments on the
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
point of denial of title of the plaintifflandlady/ respondent No.1 is perverse and
grossly illegal inasmuch as neither in the
written statement filed in S.C.C. Suit nor
in the plaint of the Injunction Suit No.267
of 2006 nor at any point of time, the
defendant-tenant/ petitioner has denied the
title of the plaintiff-landlady/ respondent
No.1. In the absence of any denial of title
by the defendant, the provisions of Section
20(2)(f) were not attracted and yet the
impugned judgments have been passed
baselessly by the courts below.

(iv) Question of denial of title is
a serious matter and, therefore, in the
absence of clear denial of title, no decree
can be passed in terms of the provisions of
Section 20(2)(f) of the Act. Mere seeking
information of ownership is not denial of
title.

12. Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior
advocate
for
the
plaintiff-respondent
submits, as under:-

(i)
The
defendant-tenant/
petitioner was well aware of the ownership
of the plaintiff-landlady/ respondent No.1
of the building in question. This fact
becomes further evident from the reply
dated 12.03.1985 given by her father
Mahesh Chand to the defendant-tenant/
petitioner in reply to their notice dated
28.01.1985 given through counsel Mohd.
Iqbal Khan. Averments made in paragraph1 of the plaint of O.S. No.267 of 2006
filed by the defendant-tenant/ petitioner
also amounts to denial of title of the
plaintiff-landlady/ respondent No.1. Thus,
the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has denied
that the title of the plaintiff-landlady with
respect to the house in question and
renounced
his
character
as
tenant.
Therefore, the impugned judgments have
been lawfully passed holding denial of title
by the defendant-tenant/ petitioner.

DISCUSSION
AND
FINDINGS:-

13. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties
and
perused
the
impugned
judgments.

14. Section 20(2) of the U.P. Act XIII
of 1972, enables a landlord to institute a
suit for eviction of a tenant from a building
after determination of his tenancy of one
or more of the grounds mentioned in
clauses (a) to (g). In the present case, the
controversy relates to clause (f) of Section
20(2), which is reproduced below:-

"That the tenant has renounced
his character as such or denied the title of
the landlord and the latter has not waived
his right of re-entry or condoned the
conduct of the tenant."

15. Section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 creates an estoppel for
a tenant to deny the title of his/ her
landlord, which is reproduced below:

"Section
116.
Estoppel
of
tenant; and of licensee of person in
possession.--No
tenant
of
immovable
property, or person claiming through such
tenant, shall, during the continuance of the
tenancy, be permitted to deny that the
landlord of such tenant had, at the
beginning of the tenancy, a title to such
immovable property; and no person who
came upon any immovable property by the
licence of the person in possession thereof,
shall be permitted to deny that such person
had a title to such possession at the time
when such licence was given."
1 All. Banke Lal Agrawal Vs. Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal & Ors.
523

16. The aforesaid provision of
Section 20(2)(f) of the U.P. Act XIII of
1972 is, thus, a provision for determination
of tenancy by forfeiture on denial of the
landlord's title by the tenant. It is a
statutory ground of eviction, which has
been incorporated in the Act which
becomes invokable by a landlord when a
tenant has renounced his character as such
or denied the title of his landlord and the
landlord has not waived his right of reentry or condoned the conduct of the
tenant.

17. A tenant's bona fide calling
upon his/ her landlord/landlady to prove
his/ her ownership or putting the landlord/
landlady to prove his/ her title so as to
protect himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a
protection made available to him by Rent
Control Law but without disowning his
character of possession over the tenancy
premises as tenant cannot be said to have
denied the title of his/ her landlord/
landlady or disclaimed the tenancy. The
denial or disclaimer to be relevant for the
purposes of Section 22(2)(f) of the U.P.
Act XIII of 1972, should take colour from
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.

17. Section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act, is a rule of estoppel, which
prohibits a tenant of immovable property
or person claiming through him to deny
title of his/her landlord/landlady during
continuance of the tenancy. This estoppel,
so long as it binds the tenant, excludes the
tenant from raising a plea disputing the
title of his/ her landlord/ landlady. The rule
of estoppel applies so long as the tenancy
is not terminated and the rule estops the
tenant from laying challenge to the
ownership
of
the
landlord
at
the
commencement of the tenancy. This
contemplates the following fact situations
which entail the lessee having renounced
his character as such. These are:- (i) when
the lessee sets up a title in a third person,
or (ii) when he claims title in himself, or
(iii) If the tenant assists a stranger to set up
an adverse title or delivers the premises to
him in order to enable him to set up a title.
Thus, in either case situation, the tenant
could be said to have disputed or denied
the title of his landlord because a title in
third person or title in himself cannot coexist with the title in the landlord.

18. The principle of forfeiture by
disclaimer is that where the tenant denies
the landlord's 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. Where after 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 landlord is.

19. To answer a question where an
assertion of denial of landlord's title by the
tenant was bona fide, all surrounding
circumstances under which the assertion
was made, have to be seen. To invoke the
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground of eviction under Section 20(2)(f)
of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, there should
not only be a clear denial of title of the
landlord by the tenant but the landlord
should also allege and prove that he had
not waived right of re-entry, or condoned
the conduct of the tenant.

20. The principle as stated above also
finds support from the law laid down in
Keshar Bai vs. Chhunulal, (2014) 11
SCC 438, Sheela vs. Firm Prhlad Rai
Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375
(paras-11 to 17), J.J. Lal Pvt Ltd. and
others vs. M.R. Murli and another, AIR
2002 SC 1061 (Para-18), Sheikh Abdulla
vs. Mohammad Muslim, 1926 AIR
(Cal.) 1205, Sugga Bai vs. Hiralal, 1969
AIR (MP) 32, 1937 AIR (PC) 251 (para10), Mohd. Arif vs. IVth Additional
District Judge, Aligarh and others, 1984
(2) ARC 255 (All.) (Para-8), Dr. A.S. Raj
vs. District Judge, Lucknow and others,
1982 ARC 515 (All.) (Para-26), Ram
Autar Goel vs. Jagannath Gupta and
another, 1998 (2) AWC 828 (paras-13
and 14), Pradeep Gautam and another
vs. VIIIth Additional District Judge
(Judge, SCC) Allahabad and another,
1993 (1) ARC 44, Brij Bhushan Mishra
vs. Surita Sarbabdhikari, 2009 (74)
All.LR 266 (paras-7 and 8), Jalsabh
Shaikh vs. State of Goa, AIR 2000 (SC)
568 and Sahaj Ram vs. Rajednra
Prasad, 2016 (6) ADJ 626.

21. Perusal of the undisputed facts as
noted above in paragraphs 3 to 6 leaves no
manner of doubt that the defendantpetitioner/ tenant has not denied the title of
the plaintiff-respondent/ landlady. The
tenant has specifically stated that he has
never denied the title of the respondentlandlady with respect to the disputed shop.
The tenant has also deposited entire rent
on the first date of hearing and continued
to deposit/ pay rent to the plaintiffrespondent/
landlady.
Under
the
circumstances, the finding of the courts
below in the impugned judgment dated
04.01.2013 in SCC Suit No.05 of 2007
(Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal vs. Banke Lal
Agrawal passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/
Small Cause Court, Gautam Budh Nagar
and the judgment and decree dated
30.03.2015 in SCC Revision No.01 of
2013 (Banke Lal Agarwal vs. Smt. Dr.
Mithilesh Bansal) passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No.2, Gautam Buddh
Nagar with respect to the finding on the
ground of denial of title of the plaintiff
respondent as a ground for eviction from
the disputed shop, is hereby set aside. The
impugned judgments and decree are
accordingly modified. Consequently, the
eviction of the defendant-tenant/ petitioner
under the impugned judgments, also stands
set aside.

22. In view of the aforesaid, the
petition is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
----------
(2020)1ILR 524

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8040 of 2019

Irshad Fatma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shahabuddin

Counsel
for
the
Respondents: