HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisht, the learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. H. S. Dhillon, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

(2.) The present dispute relates to the eviction of the revisionist from the premises in question. It transpires that the revisionist fell in arrears of rent for the period 1998 to June, 2000. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued terminating the tenancy and calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the period of notice. Since the revisionist did not vacate the premises nor paid the arrears of rent, a suit was instituted by the landlord before the Judge Small Causes Court. The revisionist tenant raised a defence that the suit could not have been filed under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act since the revisionist was a tenant in the shop in question, which was an old construction and, consequently, the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was applicable.

(3.) The trial court on the basis of the affidavits and evidence brought on record held that there is a relationship of a landlord- tenant between the respondent and the revisionist. The trial court also found that the revisionist was in arrears of rent and that a notice was validly issued terminating the tenancy. The court below found that the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable, and consequently, decreed the suit for the eviction and for the arrears of rent.