MADAN MOHAN KUKRETI Vs. GEETA BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-4-2004, passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002, whereby judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 45 of 1998 is confirmed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent instituted as suit for ejectment and mesne profits against the defendant/appellant from room No. 248/249. Block-II of the Geeta Bhawan, Swargashram (Rishikesh). Plaintiff/respondent's case in the plaint was that, it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is a public charitable institution. On 19-1-1990, defendant/appellant was appointed as Technical Officer and to facilitate him to discharge his functions in the said capacity, he was allowed to stay in aforementioned rooms as a licensee. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant/appellant was provided a gas cylinder with regulator and a gas stove. It is further pleaded that, since the building belongs to a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not applicable to the building in question. Otherwise also, the defendant is not a tenant in the building. Plaintiff further pleaded in the suit that on 8-3-1996, the services of the defendant were terminated and with that his license to stay in room Nos. 248-249 also came to an end. However, even after being asked to deliver the possession the defendant failed to vacate the premises in question. Ultimately, a notice dated 11-5-1998 was served on the defendant terminating his tenancy w.e.f. 30th day of the date of notice. The defendant refused to accept the notice and got it returned and thereby his license has already been terminated. With these allegations, ejectment of the defendant and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month were claimed by the plaintiff (respondent).

(3.) The defendant contested the suit before the trial Court and filed his written statement, in which he claimed himself to be a tenant in the premises in question. He also challenged that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in question. It was pleaded by the defendant that Sri Chiranji Lal, Manager of the Geeta Bhawan has no knowledge of the Ayurvedic medicines and as a Technical Officer he (defendant) made certain advises to him which the Manager did not like and ultimately issued a show cause notice dated 8-3-1996 terminating his services. The defendant had separately filed a suit No. 14 of 1996 challenging said termination. Claiming himself to be tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, it is alleged in the written statement that the tenancy did not stood terminated.