MUHD. NAIMUL HASSAN Vs. ANGAD SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was inducted as tenant of the shop in question, pursuant to an agreement w.e.f. 1.6.1991, which lasted till 30.4.1992. The rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 250.00 per month. It is not in dispute that the term of the agreement was not extended thereafter. Petitioner, however, continued to remain in possession and the rent deposited by the petitioner was accepted by the landlord. Ultimately, a notice under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), determining the tenancy , was issued on 29.9.2005. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises, proceedings for eviction before the Small Causes Court was initiated. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner-tenant on various grounds, including the ground that the petitioner has been depositing up to date rent, as such, no order of eviction could be passed. This was contested by the landlord by contending that the status of the petitioner-tenant, after expiry of the period of agreement was that of a tenant, holding over, in the premises and the same continued so long as notices under Sec. 106 oft he Act was not issued. However, once the notice under Sec. 106 of the Act was issued, thereafter the status of the petitioner was of a tenant in sufferance and, therefore, the benefit of Sec. 114 of the Act was not available. The judge Small Causes Courts, vide order dated 7.7.2014 decreed the suit for eviction after recording a finding that the tenancy had been validly terminated, and vacant possession was to be handed over to the landlord within a period of one month, alongwith payment of arrears of rent. This order was challenged in revision, which has also been rejected vide order dated 8.1.2015.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said two orders, tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been depositing up to date rent and, therefore, the order of eviction , passed by the courts below, is illegal. Learned counsel submits that as up to date rent had been deposited in proceedings before the court below, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 114 of the Act and no order of eviction could be passed.It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the status of the petitioner is of a tenant in sufferance, then in law, his status would be that of a tress passer and a suit for eviction would lie before the civil court and not before the Judge Small Causes Court.