ARUN KUMAR NIGAM Vs. KISHOR KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) Present revision filed under Sec. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1887') challenges the judgment and decree dtd. 14/5/2015 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 24, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. No. 77 of 2008 by which the court had decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties.

(3.) Facts in nutshell, are that plaintiffs-opposite parties are the joint owner and co-landlord of House No. 24/79 Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar. Originally, the property belonged to Smt. Bittola Devi, widow of Late Shyam Sunder Gupta and mother of plaintiffs-opposite parties. On 11/12/2006, Bittola Devi unfortunately died and they became the legal heirs. According to plaintiffs, the house consisted of one shop and on the backside, three rooms are constructed which are connected with each other along with toilet and an open courtyard. The monthly rent of the property in dispute was Rs.750.00 per month along with water tax. The provisions of Rent Control Act was applicable. From 1/1/2000, the tenant-revisionist did not tender any rent to plaintiffs-landlord. According to plaintiffs, there was outstanding rent from 1/12/2006 and from 1/1/2000 to 30/11/2006, the tenant was liable to pay Rs.750.00 per month along with water tax, thus, the total outstanding was Rs.11,205.00 It was also stated that the tenant had sublet the property violating the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also stated that the tenant had purchased one house for residential purpose in the year 1978 and the sale deed was executed on 24/11/1978, thus, no benefit of Sec. 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 can be given to the tenant. As the rent was not tendered, registered notice was sent on 22/2/2008 demanding the rent. As rent was not tendered nor the premises was vacated, S.C.C. Case No. 77 of 2008 was filed. The tenant-revisionist contested the suit and filed his written statement and submitted that the plaintiffs had locked the doors of the passage leading to the courtyard and rooms. He has also denied the amenity of water by putting the lock, closing the access to water tap. It was also stated that the tenant was a doctor and was running clinic at two places. It was also averred that the rent was tendered through money order on 1/2/2008 but the same was returned back with remark 'refused', it covered the period from 1/11/2006 to 31/10/2007. It was also averred that a sum of Rs.40,006.00 was tendered on 25/7/2008. The said amount was deposited with intention that in case default in payment of dues arrears of rent is arrived at, the tenant would be relieved from liability of eviction within ambit of Sec. 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. Further, in Para 8 it was denied that the property was not sublet to any person in the name of A.K. Nigam and in fact the brief name of tenant-revisionist, Dr. Arun Kumar Nigam was A.K. Nigam. It was also averred that after the plaintiffs-landlord refused to accept the amount of rent, the tenant had deposited the same under Sec. 30 in Misc. Case No. 107/70 of 2008.