GOVIND PRASAD Vs. DINESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the tenement as described in the SCC Suit No.22 of 1997, Kailash Chand vs. Govind Prasad, which was instituted under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 by the predecessor of respondent/landlord in July, 1997 for seeking an eviction of present petitioner from the tenement in question i.e.:-

(2.) It was contended by the landlord in the suit that since the petitioner/tenant has committed a default in remittance of rent, plus house tax and water tax for the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.04.1997 and as such he deserves to be evicted from the property in question. On committing the said default, the notice of terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by the petitioner on 03.05.1997 raising a demand of arrears of Rs.257.25. In response thereto, the petitioner's contention was that he would not be treated as to have committed any default in remittance of rent, plus taxes for the reason being that the amount of rent for the period for which it was claimed in the proceedings of the SCC Suit that stood deposited by him under Section 30 of Act No.13 of 1972 on 27.03.1997. He further claimed a benefit, that since the amount stood deposited by the petitioner under Section 30; coupled with the fact that the amount as claimed as arrears would not be an exact determination of the correct amount because as per the rent receipts, which was placed on record by way of remittance of the rent as agreed to be remitted would not be inclusive of the house tax and water tax so, as to be determined and included into the calculation of arrears for the purposes of institution of the proceedings by way of SCC Suit before the Judge Small Causes.

(3.) In the proceedings as filed by way of Case No.22 of 1997, before the Judge Small Causes, the landlord/respondent has come up with the case that the petitioner/tenant was occupying a premises which included one room and a verandah tin-shed situated at Bhupatwala District Haridwar for which he was remitting the rent to the tune of Rs.35/- per month alongwith water tax and house tax in addition to it, @17.5% per month, as well as there were other dues also which was claimed to be made payable by the petitioner/tenant but since the same was defaulted and as a consequence thereto he has contended that he has issued notices on 03.05.1997, as referred therein and claimed for the remittance of the defaulted amount as well as for handing over of the peaceful and vacant possession of the tenement:-