RAGHUNATH GOEL Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH NEHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant/defendant has preferred this Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act 9 of 1887) against the order dated 16 August 2011 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, whereby the suit for the eviction of tenant has been decreed. The essential facts are; the plaintiff/respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises Chaudhary Bhawan situated at Niwari Road, Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. The landlord instituted a suit No. 72 of 2006 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad for the eviction of the tenant/revisionist and for the recovery of Rs. 3,18,600/ - as arrears of rent together with pendente lite and further interest. The landlord has further claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 25,000/ - per month for the use and occupation of the premises from 16 July 2005 till the premises is actually vacated by the defendant and the possession is handed over to the landlord. He further claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as damages for the expenses incurred by him in making modification of the premises. The landlord's case was that he let out a portion of the house, Chaudhary Bhawan consisting three halls, three rooms, two verandas and two galleries at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ - per month w.e.f. 27.1.2004. The landlord and the tenant entered into an agreement dated 27.1.2004 in the said premises for a period of three years. The tenant had taken the premises on rent for running a Coaching Institute/Educational Institution. On the request of the tenant the landlord had made suitable alterations in his premises as per the need of the tenant. Accordingly, he has incurred a sum of approximately Rs. 2 lacs for the modifications. As the tenant wanted to run the educational institution, the existing kitchens were altered to make the room for the said purposes.

(2.) IT is stated that after the alteration of the building the tenant took the possession of the premises on 27.1.2004. But the tenant did not make the payment of rent in terms of the agreement. It is averred in the plaint that for the reasons best known to the tenant he has not used the building. The furniture is lying in the building and his associates/employees come to the premises and sit there for the whole day and leave it after locking the same. The landlord repeatedly made requests for the payment of arrears of the rent but the tenant was not serious about the payment of the rent. When the tenant did not pay any heed to the repeated requests of the landlord for the payment of his arrears of rent and the current rent the land lord had no option but to send a notice dated 17 June 2005 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882) for terminating his tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and for vacation of the premises. It is stated that the said notice was duly served upon the defendant/tenant but neither he made the payment of rent nor vacated the premises.

(3.) IT was further averred that after sometime the tenant wanted to vacate the premises by removing his effects from the premises but the landlord did not permit him. It is also stated that in February 2004 the landlord has taken back the possession of one room and has let out to some other persons and his goods lying in the premises, has also been given to the new tenant for their use.