KULJIT KAUR (SMT.) Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA KULSHRESTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K.Rai, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist (tenant) and Sri S.K.Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent (landlord).

(2.) The tenant revisionist is aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 24.10.2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 38 of 2004, Sri Mahesh Chandra Kulshresth Vs. Smt. Kuljit Kaur by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed by the court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist at the outset has submitted that the finding on Issue No.1 with respect to the rent of the accommodation in question is illegal inasmuch as the lease agreement itself although stipulated the rate of rent would be Rs. 2,400.00 per month but there is no contemplation with respect to the tax and security charges to be paid by the landlord and as such the finding on arrears of rent without considering the liability to pay tax and security charges is illegal. The other submission of learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the finding on Issue No.4 regarding validity of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is illegal. According to learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist the court below has illegally found the reply given by the plaintiff-landlord to the notice sent by the defendant-respondent as notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The submission is that no notice was given to the tenant and the earlier notice dated 9.10.2003 given by the plaintiff-respondent was abandoned and it was with respect to this notice that the defendant-tenant replied to which the plaintiff-respondent sent his reply on 24.5.2004, which could not be a notice to quit under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.