PUSHPA DEVI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1 in SCC Revision No. 4 of 2006.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the Petitioners who are landlord, filed Suit No. 7 of 1997 before the Small Causes Court for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the tenant- Respondent alleging that he was tenant of Shop No. B-2, Mahdauri Colony, Allahabad at the rate of of Rs. 600/- per month from June, 1996 and he has not paid the rent for which a notice was given determining his tenancy. The first assessment of the disputed shop took place on 1.4.1987 and therefore, the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the shop in dispute. The tenant-Respondent filed a written statement on 28.11.2004 stating therein that he has paid the rent for the month of June and July 1996 to the deceased husband of the landlady, Sri Laxmi Narain husband of the Petitioner did not give any receipt. The rent for August, 1996 was sent through money-order which was returned and thereafter from June 1996 to October, 1996, rent was again sent by money-order which was again returned. The construction of the shop in dispute is an old one and provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 applied over the same. The tenancy between the parties is based on contract and till there is any violation of the terms of the contract, the tenancy cannot be terminated. Further averment has been made that the tenant has earned goodwill from the shop in dispute and has invested sufficient amount and has also deposited Rs. 8700/- under Section 20 (4) of Act No. XIII of 1972. In case the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 are not found applicable to the property, then deposit of rent made by tenant-Respondent may be accepted to be deposited under Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis of documentary evidence the trial Court framed various issues. One of the main issues was whether provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 will apply to the shop in dispute? Further whether the rent note A-30 is legally admissible in the evidence and its terms are binding over the parties? Further whether Defendant has defaulted in payment of rent or not and whether the Defendant-tenant can be given the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as whether the tenant is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute?