MOHAN DAS NIKHRA Vs. RAM KALI DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord is the owner of House No. 65, Khatriyana Mohalla in Jhansi where the petitioners were the tenants of a shop at Rs. 500 per month. The landlord filed Suit No. 66 of 1997 against the petitioner tenants with the allegation that the disputed premises was built in 1991 where both the petitioners were taken as tenants in 1992 when a rent note was also executed between them. However, the petitioners fell in arrears of rent from January, 1997 and neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises despite notice dated 26.6.1997, therefore, the necessity to file the suit.

(3.) The petitioner No. 1 did not file his written statement and proceedings against him were taken ex parte vide order dated 28th of January, 1998. Petitioner No. 2 filed his written statement, admitting the tenancy but denied that it was a new construction and U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable as the building was built about 20 years ago. It was further stated that when the landlord refused to accept the rent, it was sent by money order which was also refused and therefore, rent was deposited under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 87 of 1997 and after filing of the suit, it is being deposited in the Court. The service for notice was denied and it was also pleaded that the landlord had taken a premium of Rs. 1.5 lacs when the house was given on rent but no receipt was given.