DEV RAJ Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed to quash the judgment and decree dtd. 24/1/2001 passed by Sri R.B. Singh, Spl. Judge Anti-Corruption/A.D.J. Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 23 of 1997.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that respondent Rukmani Devi filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages against the defendant/revisionist Dev Raj alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 29-A Sindhu Nagar, Mohalla Katra, Chand Khan Old City, Bareilly. There is a room, kitchen-cum-store room, bathroom and latrine room towards North-East on the ground floor of the house in which the defendant is a tenant since 15/2/1995 @ Rs.1,000.00 per month. He is also responsible for paying the electric bill and local taxes. The tenancy starts from 15th of every month. The defendant after 15/5/1996 has not paid rent, mesne profits, electric bill and local taxes after 15/5/1996. The plaintiff is a little educated lady and has a little knowledge of law. She used to deliver receipts pasting revenue tickets on blank papers. She never prepared any copy or counter foil of it. Therefore, she had not taken signatures of the defendant on any counter foil of receipts. After 15/5/1996, the plaintiff had demanded several times the rent, mesne profits and amount of electric bill and local taxes but defendant ignored and has not paid the same and started unparliamentary behaviour and abusing. Therefore, she sent a notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act on 6/1/1997 reduced in writing by her Advocate, Raj Kumar Agrawal. It was delivered to the defendant same day as dasti notice but defendant refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff pasted the notice upon the main door and terminated the tenancy of the defendant.

(3.) The defendant had filed a suit No. 37 of 1996 Dev Raj vs. Rukmani Devi and Others and moved temporary injunction application. The plaintiff had filed objection and counter objection and also copy of notice dtd. 6/1/1997 as Schedule-A and copy of affidavit was also provided to the counsel of the defendant. Thus, the defendant had full knowledge of the notice. In spite of that neither the defendant vacated the tenanted part of the house nor provided the possession nor paid any rent, mesne profit, electric bill amount and local taxes due upon him. In Para 6 of the suit, the plaintiff has given the details of the amount. In Para 8 of the plaint she has valued the suit and has stated about the court fees and thereafter, has sought the relief.