NARAIN GUPTA Vs. GUR BACHAN SINGH SALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H.S. Jain who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1999 by which the suit preferred by the opposite parties was partly decreed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kheri. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties are the landlord of the premises in dispute and the petitioner was the tenant from 1.6.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 which was later on increased to Rs. 1,100 per month. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent by the landlord to the tenant in which the arrears of rent and damages were claimed. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner. After the service of the notice, neither the arrears of rent were paid to the opposite parties nor the premises was vacated. The opposite parties thereafter filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1995. The said suit was contested by the petitioner who filed written statement anr" on the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues for determination : (i) Whether the tenancy is covered by the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972? (ii) Whether the tenant did not pay the rent as averred by the plaintiff and what was the rate of rent originally agreed upon? (iii) If so, what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

(3.) Both the parties in support of their cases filed oral and documentary evidence. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, partly decreed the suit of the opposite parties for arrears of rent and ejectment.