KAMAL KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. AVINASH KUMAR SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short, the "Act") is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th April, 2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad, in S.C.C. Suit No. 40 of 2011 (Awanish Kumar Saxena v. Kamal Kumar Kashyap) whereby the suit of the landlord has been decreed.

(2.) The landlord-opposite party filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist, who is tenant in the shop in question @ Rs. 1200/- per month. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on 30th September, 2011 determining the tenancy of the revisionist and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,200/-. The case of the landlord was that the tenant-revisionist has not paid the rent since June, 2010, therefore, he does not want to continue the tenancy of the revisionist. Thereafter, the landlord filed the suit in the Court of Small Cause, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 40 of 2011. The Judge, Small Cause Court, has framed one of the issues with regard to applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Said issue has been decided in favour of the landlord and it has been held by the Court below that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question. It has also been recorded by the Court below that there is no registered agreement between the parties. Therefore, the tenancy can be determined by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the revisionist, and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the landlord-opposite party.