STATE OF U.P. Vs. BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.P. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the defendant-revisionists and Sri D.K. Chaddha on behalf of both the respondents, who states that he has already filed a caveat in this revision on 6.3.2013. Since both the respondents are represented this revision is being decided finally today itself with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. The Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 22 days in bringing this revision. The explanation given by learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and since Counsel for the respondent has consented and has not opposed the con-donation of delay and, therefore, the delay is condoned having been sufficiently explained. Office is required to give a regular number to this revision.

(2.) According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 2005, Bharat and another v. State of U.P. and others before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Aligarh. In the said suit the plaintiff-respondent had claimed eviction of the defendants on the ground that they have served notice and terminated the tenancy. According to learned Standing Counsel, the Trial Court has found that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 80 C.P.C. was a valid notice and he submits that on the said basis the impugned order has been passed. According to learned Standing Counsel the Trial Court has failed to consider that the notice dated 13.8.2005 and 22.8.2005 was not a valid notice and hence the suit could not have been filed on that basis. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the defendant-revisionist was not in arrears of rent and the monthly rent had been paid to the plaintiff-respondent well within time each month and after institution of the suit it was deposited in the Court also within time each month. Learned Counsel states that under such circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri Chaddha, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was not for eviction of the defendant-revisionist on the basis of default in rent. He states that the relief claimed in the plaint was simpliciter for eviction of the defendant-revisionist for the reason that notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given and although received the defendant-revisionist did not vacate the premises hence the suit was filed. He states that the findings recorded by the Trial Court is in accordance with law since the notice was simpliciter to quit and not on the basis of default in payment of rent.