RADHEY SHYAM Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant at some length. The first contention was that there was no proper notice of demand which was essential for establishing default within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In support learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Harish Chandra v. Second Additional District Judge, Moradabad, reported in 1983(1) ARC 89. This decision has no application. This notice of demand of this case determined the tenancy of the defendant in present. It stated that the tenancy was determinated forthwith. The notice then went on to demand that the defendant should vacate the premises after paying the arrears of rent. Such a notice was held by this Court not to be a notice contemplated under Section 20(2)(a). The position in the present case is entirely different. Here the landlord had stated in the notice that he does not desire to keep the defendant-applicant as a tenant as he was a bad pay-master. It then called upon the defendant to pay the entire arrears of rent within a month. Lastly, the notice asked the defendant to quit the premises on the expiry of 30 days. Such a notice clearly amounts to a notice within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) and also complies with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel next contended that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application, for getting paper No. 18 Ka examined by an expert on the ground that it was belated attempt on the part of the tenant. I find no merit in this contention either. The Court below has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that firstly, there was no justification for moving the application at that belated stage when the case was ripe for agreement, and, secondly, the defendant was from the very beginning interested in delaying the disposal of the case on a number of occasions. A transfer application was also moved but the same was rejected by the learned District Judge. The Court below has also observed that instead of complying with the orders of the Court and getting the case argued, the defendant has moved the present application simply to get the case adjourned. These observations of the Court below are fully borne out by the order sheet of the case, a copy of which has been annexed by the defendant-applicant to his application.

(3.) THERE is thus no merit in this revision. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it seems desirable to allow the defendant applicant some time to vacate the premises and to find out some alternative accommodation. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has conveyed to the Court on undertaking given by the petitioner that he will hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff-opposite parties by 31st December, 1990 and that he would not induct any other person into the shop in dispute, directly or indirectly. The further undertaking given by the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant will deposit in the Court below damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 170 per month in advance by the 15th of each month. If the defendant commits any default in complying with any of these conditions he will be liable to be evicted forthwith.