RAJ KUMARI BHATIA (SMT.) Vs. INDERJEEF KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, preferred under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2004, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2001 by learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Addl. District Judge/Ill Fast Track Court, Haridwar. 2-3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent is owner and landlady of the shop in question in which defendant/revisionist is tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month since 29.9.1993. As per the plaint case, the shop was let out to the defendant only five years, but meanwhile, defendant sublet the shop due to which she was served with a notice dated 5.4.1995 and asked to vacate the shop in question. However, nothing was done at the time. At the time the shop in question was let out, the landlady took premium of Rs. 65,000.00 out of the agreed amount of Rs. 85,000.00 and was entitled to adjust said sum against the rent due. A notice dated 24.1.1.2001 was again got sent by registered post as well as Under Postal Certificate to the defendant terminating her tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on expiry of 30 days of the service of said notice. But the defendant did not vacate the shop in question. It was also pleaded in the paint that since the shop was assessed by the Municipal Board only with effect from 1.4.1988, as such, provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are not applicable to the building. With these pleadings, suit was instituted for ejectment of the defendant.. Defendant contested the suit before the trial Court and filed her written statement in which she admitted that she was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month since 23.9.1993 in the shop in question. It is also admitted that initially the tenancy was for five years. The defendant also admitted having received the notice dated 5.4.1995 but denied that she sub let the shop to anyone. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the defendant would be entitled on vacation of the shop in question to the refund of the premium she has paid to the plaintiff. As to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is stated in the written statement that construction of the building in question started in the year 1980 and was completed in the year 1984 but the plaintiff did not report to the Municipal Board, Haridwar about the completion of the construction and, as such, she cannot take benefit of the first assessment of tax of the building. Lastly, it is pleaded that the defendant is running a Beauty Parlour in the shop in question but the plaintiff got her electricity connection disconnected on account of which the defendant asked the plaintiff to refund the amount of premium received by her but she did not refund the same and as such defendant refused to vacate the shop in question in 1995. 4. The following points of determination were decided by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court: