N.K. SARIN Vs. ANJANA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the order dated 19.03.2016, passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts / IV Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Suit No. 36 of 2012, N.K. Sarin Vs Smt. Anjana Khanna and others, whereby the application (paper no. 67C) filed by defendants / respondents no. 1 to 3 has been allowed and the plaint has been returned to the plaintiff / revisionist for being presented before the competent court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff / revisionist instituted S.C.C. Suit no. 36 of 2012, N.K. Sarin vs Anjana Khanna and others, stating therein, that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein) were month to month tenants of the plaintiff (revisionist herein) in respect of one shop bearing no. 8/2, forming part of property bearing Municipal no. 11, Rai Bahadur Ugrasen Road, Astley Hall (also known as 3-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun) at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- plus taxes. The said shop was originally let out to one D.R. Khanna, who was running his business of opticians under the name and style of M/s Khanna Opticians. Upon the death of D.R. Khanna, defendant nos. 1 to 3 became tenants as his heirs and are in occupation in the said shop. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 have not paid the rent and taxes due w.e.f. 01.01.1988 and upto July 2008 a sum of Rs.24,700/- was due from them on account of arrears of rent, besides a sum of Rs.3,087/- as water tax Rs.741/- as sever tax and Rs. 308.75 as house tax. A total sum of Rs.28,837.25 was due towards the defendant nos. 1 to 3 on account of arrears of rent and taxes. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 16.07.2008 to the defendant nos. 1 to 3 asking them to pay the arrears of rent, taxes and mesne profits/damages and to vacate the suit property at the expiry of notice period of one month. Said notice was duly served upon them on 18.07.2008. It is alleged, that inspite of service of notice, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 failed to comply with the same.