VEDPAL SINGH Vs. HARBANSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vedpal Singh has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 29-3-1990 against the decree for possession and ejectment of the revisionist from the accommodation in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent etc.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and, therefore, arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard for final disposal at the time of admission of the revision.

(3.) Admittedly the revisionist has been tenant of the plaintiff of the accommodation in suit at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month. According to the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party the accommodation in suit was constructed in the year 1980 and was assessed to house tax from 1/04/1980 and, therefore, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to it. The suit was filed in the year 1987 which was decreed against the revisionist. On being aggrieved, this revision has been preferred and following points were pressed in this revision. Firstly, it was urged that the notice terminating the tenancy was not a valid notice as its contents did not specifically terminate the tenancy as required and that the notice was further bad on the ground that it required the revisionist to vacate the shop within 39 days. Annexure-3 with the counter affidavit is the copy of the notice which specifically contains in para 5 that the plaintiff did not want to keep the defendant as his tenant and para 6 further states that with the intention to terminate the tenancy the defendant was being given notice u/S.106, T.P. Act and through the notice he was informed to vacate the shop within 30 days and also to make the payment of the rent due and deliver possession of the shop and thereafter he would be deemed to be a trespasser and he would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month.