VIMALA AGARWAL Vs. RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision against judgment and decree dated 29th February. 2000 in Small Cause Suit No. 5 of 1992 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit and pendente life future mesne profit and also for ejectment of the defendant has been decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff/opposite-party filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 19.600, arrears of mesne profit amounting to Rs. 1,786.67 paise the recovery of arrears of water tax sewer tax amounting to Rs. 5.184 and pendente lite and future mesne profit and water tax and sewer tax and for eviction of the revisionist from suit property on the ground that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent and arrears of water tax and sewer tax. The plaintiffs case was that the suit premises were newly constructed and first assessment of house tax was made in August, 1982. Provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the suit property. Monthly rate of rent was Rs. 800 which did not Include water tax and sewer tax. The defendant did not pay arrears of rent from 1.7.1990 The arrears of water tax and sewer tax were not paid since 15.8.1982. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served personally upon the defendant on 9.12.1991. The defendant, however, did not clear the arrears of rent and tax and also did not vacate the suit premises.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit admitting that plaintiff was landlord of the suit premises. it was. however, alleged that the building in question was assessed to house tax from 1978. and hence provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 were applicable. The amount of Rs. 800 per month Included the taxes also. Rs. 700 was rent and Rs. 100 per month were paid towards taxes : there are no arrears of rent or tax from 1.7.1990. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 10.000 to the husband of the plaintiff towards rent and tax. which was paid on 2.2.1992. However, the receipt was not given by the husband of the plaintiff. The sum of Rs. 10,000 was liable to be adjusted towards arrears of rent. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 7.000 was given as advance which also deserves to be adjusted. The amount of taxes was being claimed excessively. The notice served is illegal. The plaintiff is residing in part of the suit property since 1976.