VIJAY LAXMI GANGAL Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAP GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point arising for consideration in this appeal by special leave filed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 332 of 1981 turns upon the interpretation of S. 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant-landlady filed the suit on 6-8-1973 for recovering possession from the respondent-tenant of a portion of premises situate at Bhau Ka Nagla, Agra Road, Mauza Dholpura on the allegation that it had been let to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 360/- per mensem and that the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time fixed in the rent note on the expirty of 30-6-1973. She alleged in the plaint that the demised property is situate beyond the municipal limits of Ferozabad and is intended for use as a factory and is exempt from the provisions of the Act and that the respondent is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 3,960/- for the period from 1-8-1972 to 30-6-1973 and she is entitled to recover possession of the premises together with arrears of rent of Rs. 3,960/- at Rs. 360/- per mensem for the said period and mesne profits of Rs. 720/- for the subsequent period from 1-7-1971 at Rs. 20/- per day.

(2.) The respondent opposed the suit contending that the property is situate within three kilometres of Ferozabad municipal limits and was not a factory when it was let out and that it is governed, by the provisions of the Act. He denied that the rent is Rs. 360/- per mensem and contended that it is only Rs. 125/-per mensem and that the tenancy incudes a vacant land shaded green and yellow in the plan filed with the plaint which according to the plaint does not form part of the lease. He denied that he had executed the rent note mentioned in the plaint and that the vacant land shaded. green and yellow in the plaint plan had not been leased to him. He further denied that the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time and contended that the amounts claimed as arrears of rent and mesne profits are wrong and excessive and that the notice to quit is invalid in law as it excludes the vacant land shaded green and yellow in the plaint plan which also is the subject matter of the lease. Finally he contended that the suit is barred by the provisions of S. 20 of the Act sub-sec. (1) whereof says that save as provided in sub-sec. (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner.

(3.) The learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Agra who tried the suit exercising his jurisdiction as a Judge of Small Cause Court found on 19-7-1975 that he had jurisdiction while recording findings on the point of jurisdiction tried as preliminary issue, and he held that though admittedly even the vacant land marked green and yellow in the plaint plan had been originally leased up to 27-7-1972 thereafter only the red marked portion had been leased on a rent of Rs. 360/- per mensem under the rent note (paper No. 18A) the execution whereof has been denied by the respondent, excluding the green and yellow marked portion. On the basis of that unregistered rent note, (paper No. 18A) he found that the rent is Rs. 360/- per mensem, rejecting the respondent's case that the old rent of Rs. 125/- per mensem continued even after the dissolution of the partnership to which the premises had been leased earlier.