RAJESH KUMAR PALIWAL Vs. OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (the Act of 1887) has been preferred by the enant-defendant against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, the Court below in S.C.C. Suit No. 124 of 2008 (Sri Om Prakash and others v. Rajesh Kumar Paliwal) whereby the Court below has decreed the suit and directed for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation in question and has also decreed the suit for arrears of rent and damages.

(2.) The essential facts are that the revisionist is a tenant of the entire first floor of a residential accommodation, being House No. 128/2, D-Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The first floor comprises of four rooms, two latrines, bathrooms, veranda, courtyard and a kitchen. The entire first floor was earlier let out to the father of the revisionist and after his death, the revisionist is in tenancy thereof. The landlord late Om Prakash Gupta instituted the suit, which gave rise to this revision, for eviction of the revisionist, but during the pendency of the suit he passed away on 06th June, 2009, therefore, his legal heirs have been impleaded in the suit as plaintiffs-landlords.

(3.) Late Om Prakash Gupta, the landlord, had purchased the aforementioned house vide registered sale-deed dated 06th April, 1994 from its erstwhile owners, namely, Sri Uma Shanker, Sri Ram Shanker and Sri Vijai Kumar Agarwal. His name has been duly recorded in the municipal and other records. In the house in question, there are other tenants also. The parties are not in conflict on the fact that the premises in question comes within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) the Act, 1972 and the revisionist-tenant is in occupation of the first floor thereof. The landlord's case is that the tenant was fully aware of the fact that he has become owner of the house in question by virtue of the sale-deed dated 06th April, 1994 but the tenant did not pay the rent, therefore, by a composite notice dated 25th July, 2008 the tenancy was determined and a demand for arrears of rent was made. The tenant has submitted a reply to the said notice and refused to vacate the accommodation inter alia on the ground that there is no default by him.