KESHERI NANDAN AGRAWAL Vs. INDU BAJPAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. None appears for the opposite party. Since service of notice upon the opposite party has been presumed to be sufficient on 26/11/2012 this Court is proceeding to decide the matter.

(2.) The defendant-revisionist has instituted this civil revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short 'the Act, 1887') to quash the order dtd. 28/7/2012 passed by Sri A.K. Pundir, ADJ, Court No.1, Jhansi in SSC Suit No.9 of 2011 by which he rejected the application 32(C) moved under Sec. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC') to stay the proceeding of the said suit.

(3.) In brief, facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Indu Bajpayee filed an SCC Suit No.9 of 2011 against the revisionist-defendant on the ground that he is a defaulter tenant of house no.251 (present no.388) situated at Mohalla Itwari Ganj, Jhansi at the rate of Rs.1,500.00monthly rent. He has not paid the rent in spite of repeated demand since 12/11/2006. Nar Narayan Das Srivastava son of Sri Thakur Prasad @ Thakur Das was the owner of the house in suit from which she purchased land for a consideration of Rs.40,000.00 and had obtained possession thereon and started payment of house tax etc. Rashan Card was also issued at the address of the house in question. Plaintiff's father-in-law had also died in this house and the plaintiff had also taken loan and repaid it. Later on plaintiff constructed her residential house in the area of Jar Pahad and had given the house in suit at the monthly rate of rent of Rs.1,500.00 to the defendant. Sometimes defendant paid the rent but since 12/11/2006 he stopped to pay the rent. Hence, a notice on 11/12/2009 for demand of money and termination of tenancy was given and was sent and served upon the defendant which was replied mentioning false facts. At the time of issuance of notice there was arrears of four months' rent upon the defendant and he did not pay any rent to the plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of notice. Apart from this the defendant refused to accept the plaintiff as owner of the house in suit. Thus, the defendant has committed the offence under Sec. 20(A) and (F) of the UP Act No.13 of 1972. Since the defendant has not paid rent and is a defaulter and has also refused the plaintiff to be land-lord, therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted.