STATE OF U P Vs. BADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U. P. and Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police have filed this revision against the judgment and order dated 3.7.1985 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge/J.S.C.C., Mainpuri in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1980 decreeing the suit of the opposite party for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1980 against the State of U. P. applicant No. 1 and Superintendent of Police, G.R.P.. Agra, applicant No. 2 for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages on the ground that the applicants approached him to let out his house to the State of U. P. for occupation of staff of G.R.P.. Mainpuri, as it was urgently required. The G.R.P., Mainpuri, occupied the disputed premises on 8.2.1979 on an understanding that reasonable rent would be paid to the respondent/ plaintiff having regard to prevailing rent in the vicinity. However, the rent could not be settled between the parties and the applicant No. 2 continued paying Rs. 130 per month as rent subject to the settlement of the rent subsequently. The premises in question consisted of 12 rooms. 2 verandas and a big courtyard with a lawn and pucca boundaries. The prevailing rent in the vicinity was much more than rent of Rs. 312.50 per month. The respondent plaintiff served a notice on the applicants demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 250 per month and no reply was received. He moved an application under Section 9 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after called as "the Act") for determination of standard rent before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The said application was rejected. He filed appeal against the said order in the Court of District Judge. Mainpuri. It was allowed and the case was remanded back. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer again rejected the application and the respondent/ plaintiff again filed appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the premises in question. Since the provisions of the Act were not applicable the respondent/plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the applicants by serving simple notice to quit. He also claimed Rs. 11,875 as rent and damages. Despite of service of notice, the applicants did not vacate the premises hence the suit.

(3.) The applicants contested above suit on the grounds that the rate of rent was Rs. 130 per month and not Rs. 312.50 P. as claimed by plaintiff/respondent. The assertion of respondent/plaintiff regarding rent was barred by res judicata. Notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C.P.C. to the applicants/ defendants were illegal and that suit was also bad for non-joinder of Inspector General of Police.