RAM SWAROOP NATHHIMAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7/JSCC, Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 12 of 2007 (Ram Swaroop Natthi Mal H.U.F. Vs. Central Bank of India) whereby the suit filed by the revisionist for arrears of rent and ejectment has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows;

(3.) The suit in question was filed by Ram Swaroop Natthimal, Qasba Harduaganj, District Aligarh H.U.F. through its Karta Shri Rajendra Swaroop Agarwal for arrears of rent and ejectment. The plaintiff-revisionist is admittedly the owner and landlord of the building in dispute which was under the tenancy of respondent bank. Premises in dispute was let out to the Bank in the year 1979 on monthly rent of Rs. Rs.450/- by a rent deed. Rent Control Case No. 5 of 1994 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the respondent bank for enhancement of the rent. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month by judgment and order dated 26.12.1998 w.e.f. 7.4.1994, however the rate of rent was reduced by the appellate court in Appeal No. 3 of 1999 to Rs. 2153/- per month with effect from 7.4.1994. After the insertion of Section 2 (1)(g) by UP Act No. 5 of 1995 in the Act, the building in dispute stood exempted from the provisions of the Act as the rent of the building was above Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 2153/-. It is notable that the plaintiff-revisionist had filed earlier also one SCC Suit No. 6 of 2003 for the arrears of rent and eviction which was contested by the respondent bank and ultimately the said suit was dismissed on 21.1.2006 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh. Copy of the judgment dated 21.1.2006 has also been filed along with the present revision. In the aforementioned judgment the court below has recorded a specific finding that as admitted by the parties the provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the rent of the building is above Rs. 2,000/- i.e. Rs. 2153/- per month. The plaintiff-revisionist after terminating the tenancy by a notice dated 5.12.2006 of the bank filed a SCC Suit No. 12 of 2007 (Ram Swaroop Natthimal H.U.F. Vs. Central Bank of India) in the court of Judge Small Cause Court on 24.4.2007 for arrears of rent and eviction and specifically pleaded that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. The respondent bank contested the aforementioned suit by filing its written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. On behalf of the revisionist, Rajendra Swaroop Agarwal being its Karta appeared before the court below as P.W. 1 to prove its case. It is also notable that the copy of the judgment dated 21.1.2006 passed in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2003 (Ram Swaroop Natthimal H.U.F. Vs. Central Bank) was filed by defendant/respondent itself in the proceedings before the court below who had summoned the entire original record of SCC Suit No. 3 of 2006 while deciding the present suit. The court below by judgment and order 19.8.2011 dismissed the SCC Suit No. 12 of 2007. Hence the present revision.