ANURAG MISRA Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. 9 of 1887) challenging the judgment and decree dated 11-2-86 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court (VI Additional District Judge) Sitapur, dismissing the suit filed by the revisionist for the ejectment of opposite parties and for arrears of rent. Plaintiff Anurag Misra, a minor had filed the suit giving rise to this revision describing himself in the plaint as plaintiff-filing the suit through his father as natural guardian. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner of House No. 3 Footkar Ashan, mohalla Loharbagh, in the town of Sitapur. The upper portion of the house in suit was contracted in the year 1973 and that the upper portion was separate from, the lower storey portion that is to say, both the portions upper and lower were separate and independent units as per plaint allegations. The plaintiff further alleged that the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 72) did not apply to the premises in question i.e. upper portion of the house in suit. The suit was filed on 28-4-77. The plaintiff alleged that upper portion of the house in suit was for the first time assessed to municipal tax in 1980. The plaintiffs case has been that the defendants were in occupation of the upper portion of the above mentioned house on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00, plus water-tax and electricity charges since July, 1975. The plaintiff further alleged that according to the terms and conditions of the tenancy, the defendants were to bear the water-tax and that they would pay water-tax at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per month over and above rent of Rs. 250.00 per month. As per plaint allegation the opposite-parties defendants did not pay water-tax and the plaintiff had to pay the entire dues of water-tax. The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that he did not want to see the defendants to continue in occupation of the accommodation as tenant and so he issued notice determining the defendants' contract of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 26-2-77 which notice was served on the defendants on 28-2-77 and on 2-3-77 as a matter of precaution the plaintiff again issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and sent the same by registered post to defendant No. 1 which was served on 7-3-77. The defendants allowed the period of notice to expire and did not vacate the premises in dispute in compliance with the notice. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for the following reliefs:

(2.) The defendants contested the suit. Denied the plaint allegations and the right of the plaintiff to file the suit to determine the contract of tenancy as well as plaintiff's right to file the suit for eviction against the defendants-opposities parties. The defendants case has been that in the 1975 the accommodation in dispute was let out to answering defendants by Shri Sudhakar Nath Misra, the grand-father of the plaintiff and plaintiff was minor at that time. The rent for the accommodation was realised by Sudhakar Nath Misra and there had been no contract of tenancy with the plaintiff or his father. Defendants further asserted that if the plaintiff wants to claim relief for eviction of the defendants and for possession over the property in suit on the basis of his title and ownership the suit was not cognizable by the Judge, Small Cause Court and was not maintainable in Small Cause Court. The defendants further alleged that U.P. Act XIII of 72 was applicable to the house in suit as the same has been more than 20 years old construction and that suit was barred and not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 20(1) of the said Act. The defendants further asserted that the house in dispute had been constructed in 1973 and had been let out to the tenants thereafter and to the answering defendants in 1973, the assessment even if of the house in 1980 is not very material. The defendants also claimed the benefit of Section 39 of the Act.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues or points for determination:-