RAM SANEHI Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-respondent no. 3 Purusharthi Avas Sahkari Samiti, Indrapuri, Tahsil and district Etah (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) is admittedly the owner of shop no. 17 for which Municipal Board no. 58 has been allotted situate at Railway Road, Etah. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant of the aforesaid shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a small causes suit being small causes suit no. 43 of 1985 against the present petitioner with the allegation that the plaintiff is a registered samiti which has got constructed some shop at Railway Road, Etah of which the plaintiff is the owner and landlord The plaintiff did not give any information of the completion of the shop to Municipal Board, Etah neither the completion of the aforesaid shop was recorded in the Municipal Board, Etah. On the date of the construction, the shop was outside the limits of Municipal Board, Etah. The first assessment of the shop in dispute was made on 1st of April, 1981 as such the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act no. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not attracted for the shop in dispute. The further statement in the plaint was that the aforesaid shop was rented out to the petitioner-tenant at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. The shop was taken for the business purposes but the petitioner without the permision of the landlord has converted the user of the shop from business to residential purposes. It was also claimed in the plaint that the petitioner-tenant has not paid rent from 1-1-1983 to 13-2-1985 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month totalling Rs. 381.80 p. The said amount was not paid by the tenant even after serving the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner-tenant is defaulter in payment of rent and as such is liable for ejectment

(3.) THE trill court, however, further held that the plaintiff-landlord has failed to prove that the shop was let out for business purposes, as such the petitioner-tenant cannot be held guilty for change in the user of the premises in question. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for effectment of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute and also for arrears of rent from 1-1-1983 to 13-2-1985.