SHEKHAR KHANDELWAL Vs. AJAY KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for landlord respondent, who has appeared through caveat.

(2.) This revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 07.02.2013 passed by J.S.C.C./ A.D.J., Court No.9, Pilibhit in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2011, Ajai Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Shekhar Khandelwal. The suit was decreed for eviction of the tenant applicant from the tenanted shop in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent/ damages of use and occupation. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that defendant tenant applicant was tenant of the shop in dispute on behalf of plaintiff, rate of rent was Rs.2200/- per month, since April, 2010, rent had not been paid and that a stair case had been constructed inside the shop. The tenancy was terminated through notice dated 03.02.2011. It was further pleaded that shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1996 and it was assessed for house tax for the first time in the year 1996-97 by Nagarpalika Parishad, Pooranpur, hence U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply. Through the plaint, arrears of rent amounting to Rs.27279.99 were claimed.

(3.) Tenant applicant filed written statement asserting that he was tenant on behalf of landlord of three different portions including the shop in dispute and the total rate of rent of the three portions was Rs.900/- per month. Construction of stair case or any other damage to the shop was denied. Tenant further pleaded that rent till September, 2010 had been paid to the landlord and since October, 2010, rent was being deposited in a case under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 where rent had been deposited from October, 2010 to December, 2010. Regarding age of the shop, tenant had pleaded that it was constructed around 1973. In this regard, the court below after thorough examination of evidence on record particularly documentary evidence in the form of certificate issued by Executive Engineer, Nagarpalika, order of passing the map for new construction and documents pertaining to fixing of house tax of different years, it was held that during the period from 1991-95, there were only three shops, one room, bath room, latrine, kitchen etc. in the house in dispute in a dilapidated condition but afterwards 13 new shops were constructed and fresh house tax was assessed upon the newly constructed shops in 1996-97. The map for new construction was passed by the competent officer of the Nagarpalika on 04.10.1995. The court below compared the house tax records of the period 1985-90 with the period of 1995-96 and rightly concluded that 11 new shops had been constructed after 1990. Plaintiff had also paid the penalty regarding some irregularity in construction and the receipt thereof dated 14.11.1997 was filed by him. Tenant also admitted that he had taken the shop in dispute on rent in 1996-97. He admitted that about 20 years before his father was tenant in some other shop of the plaintiff.