SANJAY KUMAR TOMAR Vs. PRAHLAD KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Badaun in S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 2004, Prahlad Kumar Gupta and another v. Sanjay Kumar Tomar, whereby the Court below has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 20,250/- and damages for the period of August, 2003 to 10th January, 2004 and Rs. 16,000/- for the period 11th January, 2004 to 21st February, 2004 along with pendente lite and forfeiture damages at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and for eviction of the defendant, from the property, as described at the foot of the plaint, with costs. Prahlad Kumar Gupta and Ramesh Chandra Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords') instituted the aforesaid suit against Sanjay Kumar Tomar (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') for eviction from the premises in question on the allegations that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the rent is more than Rs. 2000/- per month and the building is exempted from the operation of the said Act. It was let out on 25th February, 2000 for a period of 11 months with effect from March, 2000. The defendant-tenant is in default of payment of rent since August, 2003 and his tenancy was terminated, by means of a registered notice dated 8th December, 2003. The said suit was contested by denying the relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties as also on the ground that the defendant-tenant is not a defaulter.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties as many as five points for determination as mentioned in the judgment, were framed by the Trial Judge. It was found that there is relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties and the agreement dated 25th February, 2000 is admissible in evidence as the rent deed is only for a period 11 months and it does not require any registration. It was found that the tenant is defaulter as pleaded by the landlords and the notice determining the tenancy is valid.

(3.) Sri. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant in revision submits that the following three points for consideration: