HABIB AHMAD Vs. NAFEES FATAMA @ CHANDA BEEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition by the tenant is directed against a revisional order dated 11.1.2010 by which the revision of the respondent-landlord against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court has been allowed while the cross objection preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Sri Raunaq Husain was the original owner of house No. 129/1 situated in Mohalla Sarai Jhansi where the petitioner was a tenant. On his death, his wife, the contesting respondent, became the owner and landlord. She instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 1999 inter alia with the allegation that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to the premises and initially the petitioner was a tenant of only two rooms situated on ground floor of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but from September, 1997, he was given one more room on the southern side and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. Earlier, the tenant used to pay the rent to her husband and used to get the entries made in the diary of the tenant himself. The petitioner-tenant did not pay rent since 1998 despite her repeated demand. Accordingly, his tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 8.6.1999 but neither rent was paid nor the premises were vacated forcing her to prefer the aforesaid suit.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that his tenancy consisted of three rooms, varanda, courtyard, staircase, latrine, bathroom and kitchen at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and though the rent was being paid to her husband, he never issued any receipt and in fact her husband had taken a premium of Rs. 20,000/- after a few months of inception of tenancy which he never returned nor adjusted it in rent. It was also stated that all the rent uptil March, 1999 had been paid to the landlady but she refused to accept the rent from April, 1999 forcing him to deposit the rent under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was further stated that the Act applies and the notice was illegal as it was not given by all the co-landlords.