DINESH KUMAR Vs. SANJAI KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord - respondent filed SCC suit no.46 of 2002 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted premises. JSCC/Civil Judge (SD), Muzaffar Nagar dismissed the suit on 12.4.2005. Against the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent filed SCC revision no.16 of 2005. A.D.J., Court No.7, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 21.9.2005 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost. The revisional court decreed the suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation pendentelite and future. The said judgment and order of the revisional court has been challenged by the tenant through this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nalin Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared through caveat.

(3.) In para-1 of the plaint it was stated that plaintiff was owner landlord of the house in dispute. In para-2 of the plaint it was stated that the house in dispute was constructed in the year 1992 hence U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) was not applicable thereupon. In para-3 of the plaint it was stated that the house tax was for the first time assessed over the building in dispute with effect from 1.4.1995. In the written statement in respect of para-2 of the plaint it was stated that allegations made in para-2 of the plaint could be only within the knowledge of plaintiff and the main purpose of Rent Control Act was to protect the tenant. In para-3 of the written statement para-3 of the plaint was admitted. In the entire written statement the allegation in the plaint that building in dispute was constructed in the year 1992 and assessed to the house tax for the first time with effect from 1.4.1995 was not denied. As non-applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was not denied by the tenant hence trial court did not frame any issue in respect thereof. Trial court framed only three issues. The first issue related to default and second and third issues related to validity of notice. In respect of default trial court held that rent sent through money order by the tenant was refused by the landlord hence tenant validly deposited the same under Sec. 30 of the Act and plaintiff had also withdrawn the said amount under order of the court where the said amount was deposited dated 5.12.2003. In respect of notice trial court held that as tenant had not committed any default hence notice of demand was invalid. The revisional court rightly held that admittedly U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute hence irrespective of default suit was liable to be decreed merely on the basis of valid termination of tenancy. Copy of notice is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. As far as termination of tenancy through the said notice is concerned, there is no invalidity in the said notice. Through the said notice tenancy was validly terminated. Receipt of notice was admitted by the tenant. Plaintiff had also filed extract of house tax assessment showing that building in dispute was assessed to house tax for the first time with effect from 1.4.1995.