KALI RAM Vs. MISTRI UDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 1997 passed by the J.S.C.C./Special Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 1992 Kali Ram v. Mistri Udal, whereby the court below has dismissed the aforesaid suit which was filed for recovery of Rs. 32,100/- as arrears of rent from 11th October, 1989 to 30th September, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month together with future damages and pendente lite with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum and also for recovery of Rs. 360/- as mesne profit from 1st October, 1992 to 12th October, 1992. A decree for ejectment of the defendant tenant from the premises in suit was also claimed.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the premises described at the foot of the plaint, which was let out to the defendant tenant on Rs. 900/- per month excluding water tax. The defendant has paid rent upto 30th November, 1987 and since then he is defaulter. The building in question being a "new construction" as it was assessed to house tax with effect from 1st April, 1986, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to it. Its municipal number is 274/12. The tenancy was terminated by means of a notice dated 28th August, 1992 which was served on the defendant on 31st August, 1992.

(3.) The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the construction in question is an old construction and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The premises in question is a gher, on both sides of it are shops of the plaintiff and the entire property is covered under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was not assessed to municipal tax at the time of letting. The rate of rent is Rs. 100/- per month and the same has been paid upto 31st July, 1992. The benefit of Section 20 sub Clause (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was claimed as the defendant has deposited the entire arrears of rent etc. on the "first date of hearing".