JAGJEET SINGH Vs. CHANDRABATI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the District judge Pauri Garhwal in S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 2004, Smt. Chandravati Agarwal Vs. Jagjeet Singh, whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed by the revisional court.

(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent Smt. Chandravati Agarwal filed a suit for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant -petitioner in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pauri Garhwal (for short the J.S.C.C.) which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2004 with the averment that the petitioner -tenant was let out the suit premises w.e.f. 15.9.1978 at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ - and the defendant was also required to pay water tax @ 12.5% and scavenging charges @ 3%. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had not paid any rent from August 1988 and water tax from 15.9.1978. Despite demand made by the plaintiff to pay the rent and other charges, the defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff served upon the defendant with demand notice dated 26.07.2004 through her advocate to pay enter arrears of rent and other charges as well as determined the tenancy of the defendant, which were served upon the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with the notice and no reply was given. The plaintiff ultimately filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,112.50/ - as arrears of rent and for eviction against the defendant along with pendente lite and future damages @ Rs. 86.62/ - per month. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement. The defendant admitted the rent of Rs. 75/ - per month but stated that the water tax and other charges were included in the rent. It was denied that the defendant had not been paying the rent regularly. He never defaulted in payment of rent. It was stated that the plaintiff never issued any receipt of rent received by her since August 1988. The defendant further disputed the plaint allegation that the plaintiff demanded rent etc. by notice dated 26.7.2004. On the other hand, it was asserted that by registered notice dated 8.6.2004 the plaintiff demanded total amount of Rs. 14,250/ - towards rent etc. from August 1988 and even no rent was due, the defendant sent the entire amount to the tune of Rs. 14,400/ - through three money orders, but the plaintiff refused to accept the Money Orders, therefore, the defendant received back the money orders. The plaintiff in order to evict the defendant again issued another notice dated 26.7.2004. It was further stated that the defendant tendered total amount of Rs. 30,000/ - which included rent @ 75/ - per month from 1.8.1988 along with interest @ 9%,water tax @ 15.5% from 15.9.78 to July 1988, scavenging charges and lawyers fee and court etc. on the first date of hearing in the Court and the monthly rent is being deposited in the court regularly and no rent is due against the defendant.

(3.) BEFORE the learned J.S.C.C. both the parties filed documentary evidence and also adduced oral evidence. The learned J.S.C.C. heard both the parties and after perusing the evidence both oral and documentary on record came to the conclusion that the defendant has already deposited the entire rent etc. due, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the J.S.C.C. vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2005.