NAVEEN Vs. VIBHU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge , Court no. 3, Bijnor in SCC Revision No. 191 of 2007, Naveen v. Vibhu Kumar and another (Annexure- 10) upholding the order of the trial court dated 10.10.2007(Annexure -7) whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed in their favour.

(2.) The petitioner is , admittedly, a tenant of the premises in dispute . A suit, being SCC suit no. 21 of 2002, for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the landlord respondents no. 1 and 2 against the defendant petitioners from the disputed premises along with pendentilite and future interest on the ground that the defendants were tenants of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 560-/ which was let out to them on 1.2.1990 for a period of 11 months; the tenancy began from 1st date of the month and expired on the last date of the month ; the premises in dispute was constructed in the year 1988 and , thus, the said premises is out of the ambit of the Act NO. 13 of 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the ''Act"); the defendants did not pay the rent since May, 2000 despite repeated demands and as such they committed default and , therefore , a registered notice on behalf of the plaintiffs was given to the defendants on 31.8.2001 by means of which they terminated the tenancy of the defendants on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; defendants neither paid the rent nor vacated the suit premises. Thus, plaintiffs filed a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and also claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.

(3.) On the other hand, the defendants filed their written statements and admitted the tenancy but it was disputed that the tenancy began from the 1st day of the month and expired on the last day of the month. They also alleged that the shop was not constructed in the year 1988, rather , it was constructed in the year 1983, hence the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the disputed premises . They further alleged that they had not committed any default whatsoever in payment of the rent; Neither any memorandum of deed , as alleged by the landlords, was executed on 31.1.1990 nor the same bears the signature of the petitioner and , therefore, the alleged memorandum is a forged piece of document and the same has been procured for the purpose of the present case; the father of the plaintiffs, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Arya used to receive the rent but no receipt in respect thereof was issued to them ; there developed family dispute between the plaintiffs and their father Rajeev Kumar Arya , hence the plaintiff denied the receipt of rent upto July, 2001 which was received by Rajiv Kumar Arya .