WAHEED AHMAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Shri Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 3 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vikas Nagar, Dehradun is a charitable trust and has certain properties and, in one such property, which is a shop, the petitioner is a tenant. It is alleged that the rent was enhanced to Rs.450/- p.m. and that the petitioner committed a default of Rs.3,150/- for the period 01/09/1995 to 31/03/1996 and, consequently, the opposite party No. 3 issued a notice dated 01/04/1996 u/S 106 of the Transfer of Property Act indicating that he does not wish to keep the petitioner as his tenant and, consequently, terminated the tenancy. THE said notice was sent by the registered post acknowledgment due and copy of the said notice was also sent by U.P.C. on 10th April, 1996. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises upon the determination of the tenancy after the expiry of the stipulated period, a suit was filed for eviction and for arrears of rent and damages under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as contemplated u/S 15 read with Clause 4 of the IInd Schedule as amended in Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) SHRI Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel submitted that the benefit of deposit of entire arrears of rent, damages, etc. should have been made available to the petitioner, even though, the benefit of Section 20 sub-clause (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not available but such benefit should have been given u/S 114 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The learned counsel submitted that since the tenancy was determined under the Transfer of Property Act on the ground of arrears of rent, the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been made available which was not considered by the courts below.