DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. AJIT KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and order dated passed by the Judge, Small Causes/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor, whereby he has decreed the suit of the landlord -respondent for recovery of the rent and eviction. The landlord -respondent instituted a suit for eviction and for a recovery of Rs. 6,100/ - as arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation of a house. The suit was registered as SCC No. 80 of 1996. It was pleaded by the landlord that he is owner of the residential accommodation situate in Mohalla Nai Basti, Bijnor and revisionist/tenant is residing in demised premises on rent of Rs. 600/ - per month including taxes. He had executed a power of attorney on 2.7.1996 in favour of his father. The grievance of the landlord was that the defendant did not pay the rent of the premises since November, 1995. By the amendment of the plaint a further plea was taken that the revisionist/tenant has acquired a residential house in the name of his son and has got the possession of the house. The said accommodation comprises of five rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. It was further stated that the revisionist/tenant is living in the newly acquired house alongwith his son and he has locked the premises in question where he was earlier living, therefore he is not entitled for any benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 (Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972).

(2.) THE landlord sent a registered notice on 26.6.1996 determining the tenancy of the tenant. The tenant filed a written statement and denied the allegations of the plaint. It was stated in the written statement that the tenant has deposited unconditionally the entire amount of rent and damages with interest and the cost of the suit in terms of sub -section 4 of Section 20 of the aforesaid Act before the first date of hearing. It was further stated that in the beginning the rent was settled @ 73/ - per month inclusive all taxes but subsequently the tenant had to enhance rent from time to time under pressure from Rs. 73/ - per month to Rs. 265/ - 300 per month in the year 1990, Rs. 400/ - in the year 1994 per month and in the year 1996, Rs. 600/ - per month inclusive all taxes. It was further stated that the notice sent by landlord is bad and invalid.

(3.) THE Court below has struck off the defence of the tenant vide order dated 29.5.1998. Against the said order the tenant preferred a Civil Revision No. 323 of 1998 which has been dismissed. There is nothing on the record that order dated 29.5.1998 has been recalled or set aside. The Court below has decreed the suit on the ground that that revisionist/tenant has failed to deposit the entire arrears of rent in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act as there is shortage of Rs. 186.25p. The Court has recorded a finding that the revisionist/tenant has acquired a residential house in the same city therefore he is not entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) in view of the proviso of Section 20(4) of the Act It has also found that the notice sent by the landlord terminating the tenancy is a valid notice.