CHANDAN SINGH, GINWAL Vs. BADRI DUTT JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions, preferred under Sec. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, are directed against judgment and decree dated 12.7.2005 passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts/District Judge, Nainital, in SCC Suit No. 08 of 1993.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is owner and landlord of Glanco out house, Mallital, Nainitai and since 1991 the defendant was tenant in the one room with Tin shed in said outhouse on rent @ Rs. 600.00 p.m. Before 1991 there was only one room in the tenancy of the defendant but later the toilets and tin shed were got constructed and made available to him and rent was enhanced to Rs. 600.00 p.m. The defendant did not pay the rent since 1991 on which a notice dated 17.11.1993 was got served on the defendant where by arrears of rent was demanded which he did not pay and tenancy stood determined. And thereafter the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears and mesne profits was filed against the defendant. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendant sub let a part of accommodation to one Harish Chandra without consent of landlord.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit before trial Court and filed the written statement in which it was pleaded that he is tenant in the accommodation in suit since 1954 on rent @ Rs. 150 per annum. When the landlord disconnected the electricity etc. in 1993, defendant had to file Suits No. 60 of 1993 and 66 of 1993. In restoring the connection the defendant incurred expenditure of Rs. 1249.00which are liable to be adjusted against rent due. As such the defendant has not committed any default in payment of rent. Rather the defendant has paid rent under Sec. 30 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It is also denied in the written statement that in defendant had sub let the accommodation.