SANJAY KUMAR Vs. VIKASH KUKRETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is a tenant of the premises in dispute, which is a shop, which admittedly was under the ownership of the respondent/landlord and which was the subject matter of the proceedings of the SCC Suit No.01 of 2006, Vikash Kukreti vs. Sanjay Kumar. As per the plaint averment, the shop in question is situated at village Maganpur, Post Office Kishanpur, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, having a total area of 20 x 10.7 feet, the precients of which was more appropriately described in para 1 of the plaint.

(2.) The landlord/respondent had specifically come up with the case, that the shop in question over which the tenancy was created, was on a month to month tenancy basis and it was carrying a rent of Rs.3,080.00 per month, but on account of the fact that since August 2015, the default was committed by the tenant/revisionist in the remittance of rent, herein his tenancy was terminated by virtue of a notice which was issued under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 8/1/2016, wherein para 4 of the said notice reads as under :-

(3.) If the notice Paper No.7 Ga, itself is taken into consideration, which admittedly was issued by the landlord and was served on the revisionist, it finds place on record as an exhibit Paper No.7 Ga, wherein the plea of default for the period from August, 2015 and the fact that the tenement was carrying a rent of Rs.3,080.00 per month, the issuance of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and as a consequence thereto terminating the tenancy was a fact, which was reflected from the contents of the notice itself, which finds place on record. The notice thus issued by the landlord/respondent on 8/1/2016, was denied and controverted by the revisionist by filing objection to it i.e. Paper No.9 Ga, denying the aspect pertaining to the default and if the averments itself is taken into consideration, particularly that as contained in para 3 of the reply, the case of the revisionist as pleaded was that the tenancy, which was created, was carrying a rent of Rs.2,800.00 and hence the demand raised by the landlord/respondent, in the notice at the rate of Rs.3,080.00 per month, was on a higher side and the notice itself was defective.