PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MEENA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present revision, the revisionist is challenging the order dated 17th May, 2011, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad by which he has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord and directed the revisionist to vacate the premises in dispute within two months, pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 3,00/- per month from December, 2000 to December, 2003 alongwith the interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum and also pay the damages.

(2.) The revisionist is a tenant in a room of the building numbered as B-13, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad since 1993. The half portion of the said premises was owned by Smt. Meena Rani, the plaintiff and the other half portion was owned by her husband, late Sri Naveen Kumar. Sri Naveen Kumar died on 23rd February, 2003. It appears that Sri Naveen Kumar executed a will in respect of his half share in favour of his wife, Smt. Meena Rani. Smt. Meena Rani has given a notice dated 7.10.2003, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act through her counsel to the revisionist stating therein that she is the owner of the entire property in dispute and the rent since 1.8.2000 has not been paid, despite repeated demands. It has also been stated that since 1993, the rent was at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The revisionist paid the rent jointly to her and her husband up to 31.7.2000. The revisionist has given reply on 1.11.2003 through his counsel. The period of three months has expired on 8.1.2003. When the revisionist could not pay the arrear of rent and has not vacated the premises in dispute, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages being Suit No. 32 of 2003. The Rent Control Act does not apply as the property in dispute was constructed in the year 1990.

(3.) The revisionist contested the suit. He contended that he was a tenant in the property in dispute since 1992 of which late Sri Naveen Kumar was the exclusive owner; Sri Naveen Kumar taken a sum of Rs. 45,000/= towards the security and executed a rent deed for 65 years, which was registered; no receipt for Rs. 45,000/- has been given; the room was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month; for the period 7.8.2000 to 6.8.2003, the rent of Rs. 36,00/-has been paid against the receipt dated 8.8.2000, issued by late Sri Naveen Kumar; the claim of the plaintiff that the rent was at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month, which is due from 1.8.2000, was denied. It has further been stated that he was not aware that the plaintiff was the owner of half of the portion of the property in view of the Case No. 391 of 1991 and became exclusive owner of the property after the death of Sri Naveen Kumar. He was not aware about any will executed by late Sri Naveen Kumar in favour of the plaintiff. When plaintiff refused to receive the rent for the period 7.8.2003 to 6.8.2004, the rent was sent through the money order, which was also refused, hence a sum of Rs. 1558/- has been deposited in the Court under Section 20(4) of the Act.