Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33460 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2266 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gopal Respondent :- Ganesh Alias Ganeshi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Adil Jamal,Prateek Sinha Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Prateek Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 and 11.12.2023 respectively passed by the Judge Small Causes decreeing the suit of eviction and arrears of rent in favour of the land-lord respondent. The order dated 23.08.2024 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court sitting in revision has also been assailed. 3. The only point that has been advanced to assail the judgment that Abdul Haneef had purchased the property only in the year 2018 and, therefore, the suit could not have been decreed for arrears of rent w.e.f 2015. 4. I have perused the judgment and also the pleadings raised in this petition and find that the originally suit was filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent by Ganesh himself as the landlord registered as SCC Case No. 3 of 2017. He later sold away the property to Abdul Haneef in the year 2018 then Abdul Haneef also moved an impleadment application and also got impleaded as one of the plaintiffs. There is no avernment in the pleadings and so also even on a pointed query being made to Shri Prateek Sinha, he could not demonstrate that at any point of time the status of Abdul Haneef was questioned by his client, nor was he able to demonstrate from the pleadings that at any any point of time rent was deposited after the notice was issued in the year 2018 to him apprising that Abdul Haneef had become the landlord of the property in question and that the liability to pay rent was towards Abdul Hanif only. There is also no deposit made under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 to avail statutory benefit by the petitioner. 5. The trial court framed four points for consideration that included the point for statutory benefit under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and also the default in payment of rent. Findings have been returned on both the points against petitioner. The findings as to the status of respondent as landlord has also come to be returned vide point No.1 and also quantum of rent vide point No. 2. 6. Counsel for petitioner himself does not dispute that by virtue of sale deed the property got transferred in favour of other plaintiff. The suit itself was instituted in the year 2017 by the original landlord who was the owner of the property for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction since the year 2015 for there being default since the year 2015. Hence, in my considered view the suit has been rightly decreed for arrears of rent w.e.f. 2015. 7. No other point has been pressed before the Court. 8. Petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad