STATE OF UP Vs. KAMLA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 passed by the Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in JCC suit No. 8 of 2002 where by the suit for ejectment of the defendants and recovery of arrears of rent and damages has been decreed. The property in dispute is a godown with appurtenant land as described at foot of the plaint. It was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant applicants herein on monthly rent of Rs. 7,505/-. The suit was filed on the allegations that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the building in question is an exempted building as its monthly rent is above Rs. 2,000/-. The notice determining the tenancy dated 29.4.2002 sent by registered post was served on 30.4.2002. Damages pendente lite and future was claimed at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per month.

(2.) The suit was contested on the pleas that the defendants are liable to pay damages at the agreed rate of rent. The covered area of the godown and the valuation of the property in question at Rs. 28,60,000/- was disputed. It was pleaded that on the proposal given by the plaintiff, the defendants took the godown in question having storage capacity of 18760 bags at the rate of Rs. 0.40 p. per bag. It was understood between the parties that the defendants shall remain in its occupation as tenant. Four issues were framed by the Trial Court who found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the notice determining the tenancy is valid. It awarded mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per month.

(3.) In the present revision, the only controversy which has been raised by learned Standing Counsel is with regard to the award of damages of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per month. The other findings that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the notice given under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid were not challenged.