LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-93

SUSHIL KUMAR SONI Vs. SHEELA

Decided On October 30, 2015
Sushil Kumar Soni Appellant
V/S
SHEELA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") has come up at the instance of defendant-tenant, who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4,/Judge Small Cause Court, Banda in Small Cause Suit No. 3 of 1999. The court below has decreed the suit partly directing plaintiff to refund Rs. 50,000/- deposited by defendant-revisionist towards security and on payment thereof the defendant-revisionist shall vacate disputed premises and handover vacant possession to plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The dispute relates to shop situate in Mohalla Sarai, near Sabzi Mandi Raod, Banda. The plaint case set up by plaintiff is that disputed shop shown as 'A, B, C, D' in the map at the bottom of plaint, was initially owned by Sri Phool Chand Chowrasia (husband of plaintiff-respondent), who died on 11.12.1998, whereafter the plaintiff became owner thereof. The shop was let out by plaintiff's husband in December, 1993 to defendant-revisionist on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. Alongwith shop the existing furniture was also let out. The defendant-revisionist did not pay rent on and after 01.01.1998, i.e., during life time of plaintiff's husband, who died on 11.12.1998. Thereafter the plaintiff also demanded rent but not paid by defendant. Ultimately on 14.03.1999 when despite demand defendant refused to pay rent, the plaintiff served notice dated 15.03.1999 through her counsel Sri Chandra Pal, demanding arrears of rent of preceding 14 months, terminating tenancy and requiring defendant to vacate shop and handover to plaintiff. The defendant did not act as directed hence the suit for eviction and arrears of rent etc.

(3.) The defendant contested suit denying allegations made in plaint. In additional pleas he stated that rent was paid earlier to Sri Phool Chand Chowrasia and after his death to plaintiff but they did not issue any receipt to defendant. The rent upto December, 1998 was already paid. The plaintiff initially did not accept rent of January and February, 1999, which was remitted thereafter by money-order on 10.03.1999 but plaintiff refused to accept the same. It is pleaded that there was no default. It is also said that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by defendant towards security amount with late Phool Chand and the question of vacation of shop would depend on refund of said amount but no such proposal was made by plaintiff. The notice of plaintiff was replied by defendant on 23.03.1999. Notice dated 15.03.1999 sent by plaintiff is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1882") and U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant deposited entire rent and there is no default. Even otherwise, he has complied with requirements of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972, hence, there is no default.