BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) against the judgement and order dated 28 January 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hathras, decreeing the suit of the respondent landlord for eviction of the revisionist/ defendant from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The essential facts of the case are that the revisionist was carrying out business of the carpet in the premises in question. The landlord sent a notice dated 11.10.2002 on the ground that the tenant did not pay the rent from 01.04.2001 to 31 October 2002. He did not pay the rent since 01.04.2001 in spite of the several reminders.

(3.) The notice was duly served upon the tenant. The landlord has also determined tenancy of the tenant/ revisionist. When the premises was not vacated after the period mentioned in the notice the landlord instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in the Small Causes Court, Hathras. It was registered as Suit No. 8 of 2002. The case of the landlord was that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) are not applicable and the tenant has stopped the payment of the rent from 01 April 2001. In addition to above he also inducted outsiders as a partner of his firm, who were not family members, therefore, on the ground of subletting also the tenant was liable to be evicted. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff no. 1 Radhey Shyam died on 06.09.2010 and the plaintiff no. 2, his wife also died on 09.11.2010. Their legal heirs Ajay Kumar Jain, Atul Kumar and Anoop Kumar Jain were brought on the record as plaintiffs. The revisionist-defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. It was admitted that they were tenant of monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The ownership of the landlord was not denied. It was averred in the written statement that the claim of the landlord that the building is newly constructed, therefore, the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, is incorrect. It is an old building and it is covered under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also stated that after receiving the notice of the landlord the entire rent from 01.04.2001 to 31.10.2002 has been deposited under the provisions of the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") on the first date of hearing. Thus the tenant was entitled for the protection of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.