ASHOK GUPTA Vs. ANAND PRASAD GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1991 of Special Judge, Meerut by which the suit of the plaintiff respondent has been decreed. Parties have exchanged affidavits, and, therefore, the revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) ANAND Prasad Garg, plaintiff respondent, filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against Ashok Gupta defendant-applicant on the ground that he was tenant in the plaintiff's building described at the foot of the plaint at the rate of Rs. 950/- per month, that initially the premises comprised of a room which was demolished and a new construction was made in August, 1980, which was let out to the defendant on September, 1980, that initially the rent was Rs. 550/- per month which was increased from time to time with the consent of the parties and the present rate of rent is Rs. 950/- per month, that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1985 to 31.7.1988 which he had failed to pay despite demands having been made, that the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by means of a notice which was served on him on 17.8.1988 and that the building being a new construction the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable.

(3.) PARTIES adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial Court after examining the record held that the suit had been filed within ten years of the construction of the building and as such the same was out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; that the defendant had not committed default in payment of rent inasmuch as he had deposited Rs. 60,000/- under Section 20(4) of the Act; that the rent of the building was settled at Rs. 950/- per month with effect from 1.2.1985 and that in view of the fact that the tenancy of the defendant had been terminated by the plaintiff by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit for ejectment was liable to be decreed. On these findings the plaintiff's suit was decreed and the defendant was also held liable to pay Rs. 900/- and Rs. 100/- per month as damages from the date of notice till the date of delivery of physical possession.