RAM GOPAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the tenant Ram Gopal and his brother challenging the order of the District Judge, Banda, dated 21st November, 1975 passed in revision against the order of the learned Munsif acting as Judge Small Causes Court, Banda.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly stated are as follows : THE petitioner no. 1 was the tenant of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. Respondent no. 3 Kamal Kishore the landlord of the house had given a notice under Sec. 5 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancing the rate of rent by 25%. THE tenant did not pay the rent since 1-7-1972. THE landlord also alleged that the tenant had sub-let the house in dispute in favour of the petitioner no. 2 and had also damaged a part of the house in dispute. He also terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 25-4-1973 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, In their reply the tenant and his brother denied the right of the landlord to enhance the rent by 25%. THE notice dated 4-10-1972 was duly replied and a bona-fide dispute was raised as a part of the accommodation had fallen down which had not been repaired by the landlord. In other words, the right of the landlord to enhance the rent was disputed. THE rent due had been sent by money order which was refused by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter it was deposited in the court under section 30 of the Act. THE tenant thus pleaded that he had not committed any default. He also denied to have sublet the house or damaged the house.

(3.) THE second contention was that the landlord could not enhance the rest unilaterally and when a dispute had been raised by the tenant it was for the landlord to get the dispute settled by making an application under Sec. 8 of the Act to the District Magistrate. I find no substance in this argument as well. Section 5 provides for the rent payable in the case of old building. It reads as follows :-