SANT LAL Vs. KAMLESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri Kshitiz Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present revision, the revisionists are challenging the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by Additional District Judge/J.S.C.C., Court No. 1, Moradabad in J.S.C.C. suit No. 8 of 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that w.e.f. October, 2001, the rent has been enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- per month and the same has not been paid, secondly, that the material alteration has been made in the shop and the said shop has been sub-let to one Sri Tilak Raj Katyal. The Trial Court on the basis of the rent receipt filed by the revisionists for the month of October, 2007 wherein monthly rent was mentioned as Rs. 1,200/- per month has held that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- w.e.f. October, 2001, which the revisionists failed to deposit. The Trial Court further observed that the material alteration has been made in the shop and the shop has been sub-let to one Sri Tilak Raj Katyal. The case of the revisionists was that the rent was Rs. 200 and when the revisionists refused to accept the rent from the month of May, 2001 onwards, the same has been deposited under section 30 of the Act in case No. 31 of 2003. Further it was submitted that there was no material alteration in the shop and Tilak Raj Katyal was the son of Sant Lal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the application under section 30 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been rejected on 21.9.2006 on the ground that the tenant has failed to prove that the landlord has refused to accept the rent and, therefore, section 30 of the Act does not apply. Against the said order, revision filed by the revisionists was also dismissed, against which the writ petition has been filed in this Court wherein no interim order has been granted. The rent under section 30 of the Act has been deposited @ Rs. 200/- per month. The Court below on the basis of receipt produced by the defendants/revisionists has held that rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- per month w.e.f. October, 2001 and further material alteration has been made and shop has been sub-let to one Sri Tilak Raj Katyal.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. The Court below has held that the receipt for the month of October, 2001 itself proves that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- per month from Rs. 200/- per month and there is no specific evidence available on record to prove the case of the defendants that the rent was only Rs. 200/- per month, inasmuch as rent has not been accepted under section 30 of the Act and therefore, there was default in depositing the rent. The Trial Court further held, on the basis of the evidence on record that the revisionists have made alteration in the shop in dispute while removing the wall between the shops and sub-let the property to one Tilak Raj Katyal.