RAJA RAM Vs. SAROJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition arising out of a decree for eviction passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. The decree has been affirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) Saroj Bala, wife of Jai Prakash instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 2007 before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad on allegations that she is the owner and landlady of a house bearing premises No. 5 (presently numbered as 3), situate at Purvi Ismail Khan, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad. Within the said premises, she has a shop, assigned private No. 8, wherein Raja Ram, the defendant, is a tenant at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month (excluding taxes - water tax, house tax and sewer tax). The tenancy is one from month to month. Raja Ram, who shall hereinafter be called 'the tenant', carries on a tailor's shop in the aforesaid tenanted premises (for short, 'the demised shop') under the name and style of 'Samrat Tailors'. The business he keeps on changing and is currently engaging himself in the retail of shoes and other footwear. The tenancy commences on the first of every calendar month and ends on the last day. The premises, housing the demised shop, are an old construction and 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', are applicable to it. The tenant has never paid Smt. Saroj Bala (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') rent for the demised shop on the date that it fell due and without the service of a demand notice upon him. In this regard, the landlady served a notice upon the tenant on 17/7/2000, demanding rent for the period, then in arrears, that is to say, from 1/1/2000 to July, 2000. The notice was duly served upon the tenant.

(3.) It is averred that the tenant is in arrears of rent since 1/1/2002, which the landlady has, time and again, demanded of him orally. The tenant, however, did not remit all arrears of rent to the landlady. The tenant does not carry on any gainful business in the demised shop. On this account, he is found, time and again, partnering or subletting the demised shop to persons, who are not members of his family, without the landlady's consent. It is averred that it had recently come to the landlady's knowledge that in the month of September, 1994, the tenant sublet the demised shop to one Neeraj Garg son of Kailash Chand Garg, a resident of Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, inducting the subtenant aforesaid in the demised shop for a sum of Rs.1500.00 per mensem. The subtenancy is for a period of five years. In this connection, the tenant and Neeraj had entered into a rent agreement in the presence of witnesses. The aforesaid act of the tenant also renders him liable for ejectment.