S P TYAGI Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, pregerred under section 25 Interpretation of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 2000 by learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Ist Fast Track Court, Dehradun, whereby suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, is decreed by said court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent - Smt. Sushila Devi, is the owner and landlord of the house in question, situatd at 88, Dharampur, Dehradun. The defendant/revisionist was tenant in said house. It is pleaded in the plaint that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,000/ - per month and tenancy started w.e.f. 01.02.1999, for a fixed period of eleven months. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant failed to pay the rent even after the demand is made for a period 01.01.2000 to 31.05.2000. Ultimately, a notice dated 19.06.2000, was sent by registered post to the defendant for demand of arrears of rent and taxes, payable by the tenant, and the tenancy was terminated from the date after one month of the service of notice. However, the defendant failed to pay the' tax and did not deliver the possession of the shop in question, let out to him. Consequently, the suit was filed before the Judge, Small Cause Court for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant.

(3.) DEFENDANT contested the suit and filed his written Statement before the trial court in which relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties. It is also not disputed that notice dated 19.06.2000, was received by the defendant. However, the rate of rent and date when the tenancy started, are denied. It is alleged by the defendant that rate of rent was Rs. 500/ - per month and the tenancy started from the month of December, 1998. It is further pleaded in the written statement' that the defendant paid Rs. 50,000/ - as security to the plaintiff in respect of which plaintiff executed a deed. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/ - was adjustable against the rent payable by the defendant. It is also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff and her husband have stolen some of' the belongings of the defendant and have forcibly locked the rooms in tin shed behind 'the shop in question.