GOPAL DASS Vs. SRI BAL KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision, the revisionist is challenging the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad by which the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages has been decreed and the tenant has been directed to handover the possession of the shop in dispute within two months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1981 a shop has been let out by the opposite party @ Rs. 200/- per month situated at Mohalla Gandhi Ganj, Chhoti Gali, Hapur, District Ghaziabad. A P.A. Case No. 4 of 1998 under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the opposite party for the ejectment after serving a notice dated 27.8.1998. The said suit was contested by the revisionist. A compromise has been made between the revisionist and the opposite party and compromise application dated 17.9.1998 was filed in the aforesaid-case. However, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Under the compromise, one shop No. 10 was provided to the revisionist and it has been agreed that on the construction of commercial complex, the shop would be provided to the revisionist After the construction of commercial complex, shop No. 14 was provided to the revisionist on an agreed rent of Rs. 500/- per month beside the tax @ 90/- per month. The compromise was signed by the parties concerned. According to the revisionist, the rent has been regularly paid. The opposite party has issued a notice dated 12.1.2009 requiring the revisionist to pay rent in respect of shop No. 14 @ Rs. 500/- per month beside tax since 1.12.2007. According to the revisionist, the opposite party has refused to take the rent. Therefore the rent was sent by money orders and when the same has been refused, the rent has been deposited under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hapur in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2009. The opposite party filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 2009 for the ejectment of the revisionist from the premises in dispute and for arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default. The revisionist deposited the rent with the bank on 23.9.2009 vide tender dated 17.9.2009. The revisionist contested the suit by filing written statement and the witnesses have been examined. The suit has been decreed by the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 for the ejectement, arrears of rent and damages.

(3.) The case of the revisionist was that he was an old tenant since 1981 and under the compromise, the shop has been vacated and after the construction a new shop No. 14 has been provided to the revisionist and, therefore, being an old tenant since 1981, the provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. It was submitted that the entire arrears of rent has been paid. The Judge, Small Causes Court held that the revisionist was tenant of the shop, which was newly constructed in the year 1998. The map was sanctioned in the year 1996 and the new construction was made and thereafter shop No. 14 was given on 23.1.1999 therefore, the provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable. The Judge, Small Cause Court has also held that there is an arrears of rent for the period 1.12.2007 to 12.2.2009 i.e. Rs. 8,500/-. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Swaminath v. Ajay Kumar,2010 3 ARC 261:Manoj Kumar v. Xth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Ors.,2004 2 ARC 322 and in the case of Jugal Kishore v. Additional District Judge and Ors., 2010 78 AllLR 316.