AZIZ UDDIN Vs. RAJESH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree of Mr. Arun Chandra Srivasava, Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Agra dismissing S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2005 for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(2.) According to the revisionist, the plaintiff in S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2005, he is the owner in possession of property bearing Premises No.1/2008, Professors' Colony, Civil Lines, Agra. The defendant, who is the respondent to this revision, according to the plaintiff-revisionist (for short, 'the plaintiff'), proposed to the plaintiff that if the latter were to construct a shop on the corner of his lawn, which was part of his premises No.1/208, Professors Colony, Civil Lines, Agra, the defendant would take the shop on rent in the sum of Rs.10,000.00 per mensem. The plaintiff got a shop constructed on the south- western corner of his lawn between the months of July to August, 2003 and let it out to the defendant-respondent (for short, 'the defendant'). The defendant entered the tenanted shop, accepting it on a rent of Rs.10,000.00 per month. The tenancy commenced on 28/8/2003. The defendant paid to the plaintiff rent for the period 28/8/2003 to 27/9/2003 and 28/9/2003 to 27/10/2003 at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month. The plaintiff issued receipts to the defendant for the rent paid by the latter. Next, the defendant paid the plaintiff the accumulated rent for the period 28/10/2003 to 27/12/2003, that is to say, for a period of two months in the sum of Rs.20,000.00. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got a notice dtd. 24/5/2005 served upon the defendant, which was dispatched by registered post on 17/6/2005. Despite service of the notice, the defendant did not pay the rent due.

(3.) The notice aforesaid determined the defendant's tenancy, asking him to quit on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of notice, but he did not vacate. According to the plaintiff, the shop is a new construction that was raised in the months of July and August, 2003 and the contracted rent is Rs.10,000.00 per month. As such, the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (for short 'the Act') do not govern the tenancy. The defendant is a troublesome character and whenever the plaintiff would demand the due rent, the former would get annoyed and lay false complaints to the Police. It was in the said background that the plaintiff was compelled to terminate the defendant's tenancy, as already indicated, vide notice dtd. 24/5/2005. It is asserted that the notice that was sent by registered post on 17/6/2005 was delivered to the defendant personally on 18/6/2005.