KRIPA SHANKER MISHRA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE VII

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 11.9.1997 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent was decreed and the order dated 13.11.2000 whereby the revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Court below.

(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 2 filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was occupying the building in question as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month. It was on 10.5.1990 that a notice of demand was served by the plaintiff -respondent upon the petitioner demanding the rent, which was due for more than four months, the defendant did not pay the rent as demanded by the plaintiff -respondent and committed default. Since he has also not vacated the building in question, therefore, the suit was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant -petitioner pleading that the rate of rent of the building in question was Rs. 25/ - per month and not Rs. 50/ - per month as claimed by the plaintiff -respondent. It was further pleaded that the amount of taxes of Nagar Nigam, therefore, could not be recovered from the petitioner as the amount of rent, which was due, was remitted to the plaintiff -respondent but he refused to accept the same and returned money order, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be a defaulter. It was further pleaded that the amount of rent was deposited in Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The suit of the plaintiff -respondent was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The trial Court after going through the material on the record, recorded findings on the relevant issues in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. It was held that the rate of rent of the building in question was Rs. 50/ - per month, which was not paid by the petitioner within 30 days on receipt of the notice. Consequently, he committed default in payment of rent for more than four months. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 11.9.1997. The petitioner filed a revision against the said decree. The revision filed by the petitioner also met the same rate and was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 13.11.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.