SNEHLATA Vs. IV ADDL DISTT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. This writ petition arises out of a S. C. C. suit No. 633 of 1971, which was instituted in the Court of learned Judge, Small Causes Court-respondent No. 2 for ejectment of the petitioners from premises No. 10/74, Katra Madari Khan, Agra and for arrears of rent. According to the plaintiffs, Smt. Snehlata petitioner No. 1 was a tenant of a portion of the premises, in dispute, at a monthly rent of Rs. 36/ -. The accommodation in her possession consisted of a room in the upper floor of the disputed building; she surreptitiously occupied the other portions of the premises; she got the entire portion allotted in her name from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by allotment order dated 5-6-1969 giving rise to further litigation and the ancestor of the contest ing respondents namely, Moolchand treated the petitioner No. I as tenant of the entire portions in her occupation. The plaintiff-respondents accordingly amended the plaint. They demanded rent from the petitioners through noticed dated 8-7-1970 from May 1969 to June 1970 and determined her tenancy in respect of the portion in her possession. Despite service of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises in her posses sion. Thereafter, another notice dated 13-5-1971 was served upon the petitioner No. 1 terminating her tenancy and on failure of the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises, in her possession the suit was instituted.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner No. 1. She denied the plaint al legations. According to her, she was tenant of the entire house at a monthly rent of Rs. 36/-; the suit was bad for mis joinder of causes of action and multifarious ness and the notice to-quit was invalid and stood waived after the acceptance of rent by the contest ing respondents.

(3.) SRI Madhyan vehemently urged that admittedly, the petitioner is tenant of house No. 10/74, situate in Mohalla Katra Madari Khan, Agra. The landlord served upon the petitioners a notice on 8-7-1970 demanding arrears of rent for May 1969 to June 1970 and in response thereof, the petitioners duly remitted the entire rent amounting to Rs. 468/- on 8-8-1970, which was accepted by the landlord- respondent, as such, the notice stood waived. So far notice dated 13-5-1971 is concerned, SRI Madhyan urged that since the arrears of rent had already been remitted, there \vas no question to take cognizance of the sub sequent notice. The judgment rendered by the trial Court is just and legal who passed the order after appraisal of evidence on record. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as, it is preposterous. According to the revisional Court, that in spite of payment of rent, the first notice did not stand waived as rent was due for 14 months, and rent was paid for 13 months. The petitioner, in fact, on receipt of the first notice paid the amount which was duly accepted without protest by the landlord-respondent, and, there fore, the notice stood waived and finding to the contrary recorded by the revisional Court is illegal.