SANTOSH DEVI Vs. SHIV MANDIR BAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2011, passed by Judge, SCC / Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in SCC No. 11 of 2008, Shiv Mandir Versus Smt. Santosh Devi as well as judgment and order dated 03.09.2013, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Small Cause Court Revision No. 12 of 2011, Smt. Santosh Devi versus Shiv Mandir.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/defendant before the Court of Judge, SCC / Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in SCC No. 11 of 2008, Shiv Mandir Vs. Smt. Santosh Devi. The suit was filed on the grounds that the plaintiff/respondent is a religious society and the landlord of the shop in question which was let out in the month of November, 1998 to the defendant/petitioner at the rate of rent Rs. 50/- per month which was increased and at the time was filing the suit, the rent was Rs. 550/- per month. The suit was filed on the ground of default as well as the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act")is not applicable to the premises to the shop in question. The petitioner/defendant filed her written statement and denied averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent and it was alleged that no religious society is registered in the name and style of Shiv Mandir Bajpur. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to institute the present suit and the petitioner/defendant has paid the rent. When the rent was not accepted by the landlord as it was deposited in the court of Munsif under Section 30 of the Act. Both the plaintiff as well as defendant had adduced their evidence. After hearing both the parties, the Judge, SCC has held that it has been admitted that the shop in question belongs to Shiv Mandir and, therefore, Act is not applicable on the premises in question and it was on the basis of evidence, the shop was assessed in the year 1987, as per the pleading of the plaintiff.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings & evidences led by the parties, the learned Judge, SCC, has held that the Rent Control is not applicable on the premises in question. It was observed that the defendant has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the shop was constructed prior to the year 1986 and the suit was decreed.