SOM NATH SEHGAL Vs. ARVIND KUMAR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short, the "Act") has been preferred by the tenant-defendant against the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Moradabad in Small Cause Suit No. 21 of 2011 (Sri Arvind Kumar Sethi and another v. Sri Somnath Sehgal), whereby the suit filed by the landlords-respondents has been decreed for eviction and arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.40,950/- and damages at the rate Rs.2,250/- per month till the vacation of the suit premises.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the landlords-respondents have let out the suit premises, which comprises of three rooms, one kitchen and toilet on the first floor, to the tenant-revisionist at the monthly rent of Rs.2,250/-. The accommodation is residential. The landlords-respondents issued a notice to the tenant-revisionist on 27th August, 2010 on the ground that the tenant has made default in payment of rent since 01st April, 2009. It was also stated in the notice that two sons of landlord-respondent no. 2 are unemployed and they need the demised premises for their personal use. The tenancy was also determined and six months' time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. Said notice is state to be served on the tenant-revisionist on 06th September, 2010. Despite aforesaid notice when the accommodation was not vacated, the landlords-respondents instituted Small Cause Suit No. 21 of 2011 (Sri Arvind Kumar Sethi and another v. Sri Somnath Sehgal) in the Court of Judge, Small Cause for eviction of tenant and arrears of rent.

(3.) In the said suit, landlords' case was that the demised portion is a part of the accommodation mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and the said portion is newly constructed and the first assessment of the demised premises was made in the year 1987. It is stated that major portion of the premises is covered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) but the portion which has been let out to the tenant-revisionist is exempted from the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as its monthly rent was above Rs.2,000/-. It was stated in the plaint that since the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the demised premises, the tenancy has been determined by the notice dated 27th August, 2010. The landlords have demanded the arrears of rent from 01st April, 2009 to 06th October, 2010, which comes to Rs.40,950/- and the damages to a tune of Rs.19,800/- for use and occupation.