GULVIR SINGH Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision from an order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr dated 29th of May 1979 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant and recovery of a sum of Rs. 2748.35 with pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from him subject to the payment of court-fee on the execution side.

(2.) The defendant is the tenant of the accommodation in question, and the plaintiff is its landlord. The house is situate in Civil Lines, Bulandshahr. The defendant took it on lease in the month of November, 1976. According to the plaintiff, the rent agreed was Rs. 200/- per month. The defendant paid an advance of Rs. 200/- in November 1976, and paid no rent thereafter. The accommodation let out to the defendant consists of 2 living rooms, one store room one kitchen, latrine, bathroom, courtyard and verandah. It appears that relations between the parties became strained, and proceedings under Sections 107/117, Criminal P C. were drawn. The defendant was alleged to have made an assault on the plaintiff and caused hurt to him and his wife. The plaintiff served a combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 27-10-1977 on the defendant. According to the plaintiff, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act (XIII of 1972) did not apply to the accommodation in dispute. The defendant was alleged to have defaulted in the payment of rent for over an year. The defendant sent a reply to the notice stating that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per month and that he had paid rent till September 1977. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the period of notice, the suit giving rise to this revision was filed for the reliefs mentioned above on the allegations that the defendant was a tenant of the accommodation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month that he had defaulted in the payment of rent since November 1976, that a combined notice of demand and termination of the tenancy had been served on him; and that he had failed to vacate the premises or to pay the arrears.

(3.) The defence delivered was that the defendant was inducted to tenancy by the son of the plaintiff named Sri R.S. Gupta at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and that he had paid rent up to September 1977. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had agreed that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 shall be applicable to the premises, and the defendant shall be entitled to the benefits thereof and that since the defendant had paid the entire rent till September 1977, he was not a defaulter.