SHYAM SUNDER Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and is directed against the judgement and order dated 18 -08 -2004 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Verma, learned Judge Small Causes Court / Add!. District Judge / 3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar, whereby he has decreed the S.C.C. Suit No. 05 of 1998 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendant -revisionist.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit against the revisionist -defendant before the trial court for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the premises in suit, which in family partition had gone in the share of plaintiff NO.2 since May 1993. Plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant -revisionist was their tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 225/ - per month apart from Rs. 10/ - per month towards water charges. It is also pleaded that since Municipal Board, Haridwar assessed the house tax only in 1987, as such provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint that defendant paid rent only up to 09 -03 -1985, and stopped payment thereafter. Therefore, after terminating the tenancy by serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit was filed before Judge, Small Causes Court,. Haridwar. The defendant -revisionist contested the suit but admitted that the plaintiff NO.2 is the landlord since May 1993 and the defendant is his tenant in premises in question. However, the defendant has denied alleged default in payment of rent and alleged that he had paid the rent right up to April 1998. In the written statement, it is also denied if the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and it is alleged that the plaintiffs wanted to enhance the rent to which defendant did not agree and his tenancy does not stand terminated as alleged by the plaintiffs.

(3.) LEARNED trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and heard them before giving its findings on five Points of Determination before it. On the Point of Determination NO.2 which related to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, learned Judge, Small Causes Court gave finding in favour of the defendant but in rest of the Points of Determination, the findings went in favour of the plaintiffs. Since no revision is filed on behalf of the respondents -plaintiffs, finding as to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can be said to be final. Now, this Court has to see if the learned trial court has erred in law coming to the conclusion that the defendant has committed any default in payment of rent and in passing the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment.