RAGHUBIR PRASAD Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GURUDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act challenging the Judgement and decree dated 20-9-1989 of the trial Court in a S.C. Suit No. 94 of 1987 whereunder the petitioner was required to vacate the premises in dispute within 30 days, the defendant-petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition wherein on 23-8-1990, notices were directed to be issued to the respondent No. 1, the plaintiff-decree-holder to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted indicating that the petition will be disposed of at the admission stage itself. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the plaintiff-respondent has put in appearance and filed a counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto has also been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff-respondent and have perused the record.

(3.) The facts of the case shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit praying for decree of ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute alleging that the petitioner-tenant in spite of the repeated requests and notice dated 14-8-1987 served on him by registered post on 5-10-1987 had neither cleared all the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises in dispute. In the plaint it was clearly mentioned that the rent in respect of the premises in dispute for the period ending 31-8-1986 stood paid up but the rent for the period beginning from 1-9-1986 up to 5-11-1987 was due. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was asserted by the plaintiff that in spite of the service of the notice dated 14-8-1987 he had not paid any amount of rent due till the date of verification of the plaint i.e. 11/11/1987 and had not vacated the premises in dispute which had necessitated the filing of the suit. While disclosing the cause of action for the suit the plaintiff had indicated that the cause of action accrued for the first time when neither the amount of rent demanded in the notice was paid after one month nor the premises in dispute were vacated.