GOVIND SARAN Vs. SHUBHI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short the Act of 1887), questioning a decree for ejectment, besides recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(2.) S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2012 was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff-landlady, Km. Shubhi Mishra, then a minor aged about 16 years through her father, Dr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, acting as her next friend. This suit was instituted before the District Judge of Pilibhit sitting as the Judge, Small Cause Court, against the defendant-tenant, Govind Saran, seeking the defendant's ejectment from a shop situate in Mohalla Desh Nagar, District Hospital Road, Pilibhit, details whereof are given at the foot of the plaint, giving rise to the suit. Besides ejectment, a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,433.00 as arrears of rent was also sought. A further decree for recovery of mesne profits in the sum of Rs.2000.00 with effect from the date of determination of the tenancy until the date of the suit, worked out at the rate of Rs.250.00 per day, besides Rs.1500.00 as costs of the notice, was also claimed. Apart from the aforesaid items of the claim, a decree for recovery of mesne profits at the rate last mentioned was claimed for the period pendente lite and future.

(3.) The suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff-landlady (for short, 'the plaintiff') alleging that the shop in question, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'demised shop', was let out on her behalf by her father to the defendant-revisionist (for short, 'the defendant') in the year 2008 for a period of eleven months. The rate of rent was Rs.5500.00 per month. The tenancy was month-to-month, commencing on the first day of each English calendar month. The provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) did not govern the tenancy. The defendant committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. February, 2012 and continued to do so, extending false promises to pay. He avoided paying the due rent on one pretext or the other that he came up with. Despite repeat demands to pay his outstanding rent, the defendant did not comply. In the circumstances, the plaintiff caused a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, the Act of 1882) to be issued to the defendant on 13/8/2012, calling upon the defendant to pay the entire arrears of rent and determining the tenancy on expiry of a period of thirty days of the receipt of notice. The defendant was also called upon to vacate the demised shop and hand over possession thereof on the expiry of the notice period. The notice was dispatched at the correct residential address of the defendant as well as his business address by registered post. The notice was duly served upon the defendant personally on 16/8/2012. The defendant's tenancy stood determined w.e.f. 16/9/2012. Despite termination of his tenancy, the defendant did not vacate the demised shop or remit the arrears of rent. It was asserted that the defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs.41,433.00 in arrears of rent from 1/2/2012 till 16/9/2012. A sum of 3Rs.2000.00 was claimed to be due towards mesne profits from 17/9/2012 till the date of institution of the suit, worked out at the rate of Rs.250.00 per day, besides Rs.1500.00 on account of fee and expenses of the notice served.