SHYAMU RAWAT Vs. PANMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist. Notice need not be issued to the plaintiff respondent in view of the order being passed herein.

(2.) This revision under Sec. 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 20 of 2004 (Smt. Panmati Vs. Shyamu Rawat) , whereby the suit has been decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant revisionist.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the finding recorded by the court below on all the five issues framed therein. He has submitted that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and by virtue of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, such relationship did not terminate. He has further submitted that the building in question was within the purview of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the finding recorded by the court below on Issue no.2 is illegal. According to him, notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and based on incorrect facts, hence the finding of the court below on Issue no.3 that it was a valid notice of termination of is illegal. He has further submitted that the rent was not Rs. 937.50 per month since the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the premises was newly constructed building in the year 1995 and therefore, his plea that tenancy started earlier and rent was enhanced in the year 1995 is self contradictory. He has further submitted that on issue no.5, the finding recorded by the court below to the effect that the defendant revisionist has raised some construction in the shop in question is also illegal. Another point argued by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent landlord did not appear as a witness before the court below and therefore, she had failed to prove her case taken up in the plaint.