CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant-petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, West, (Junior Division), Hardoi in SCC Suit No. 1/1991 on 28.11.2008, whereby a decree for ejectment of the tenant/ petitioner has been passed with cost along with the payment of arrears of rent, and the judgment and order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the District Judge, Hardoi in SCC Revision No. 4 of 2008, whereby a Revision preferred by the tenant/ petitioner against the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court (Civil Judge West, Junior Division), has been dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord/opposite parties no.3 to 7 are admittedly the owners and landlord of House no. 650 situated at Mohalla Aloo Thok, District Hardoi, in a portion of which the tenant - petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. As per the averments made in the plaint, the tenant/petitioner took the aforesaid portion on rent in the year 1985 for running 'Kirana shop'. He used the premises as shop for a period of about 3 years but subsequently he started living in the said portion along with his family. It was further alleged in plaint that the tenant -petitioner started using verandah as kitchen, by which the roof and plaster of the verandah was damaged. Moreover, the tenant/petitioner also did not pay any rent with effect from October, 1989 and as such a notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy was issued to him on 11.12.1990, which was refused by him on 12.12.1990 but inspite of that the tenant - petitioner neither vacated the premises in question nor paid the arrears of rent. The opposite party/ landlord then filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and also on the ground of causing damage to the building which was contested by the tenant - petitioner by filing a written statement. The tenant-petitioner in his written statement denied having refused any notice and alleging that the rent with effect from October, 1989 to November, 1990 was paid by him to the opposite party - landlord but no receipt was given to him. After November, 1990 the opposite party - landlord refused to accept rent and filed the suit on frivolous grounds. It was further stated by the tenant - petitioner that up to date rent along with the interest and cost of the suit has been deposited in the Court on 12.4.1991.

(3.) THE learned SCC Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 5 issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, concluded that the opposite parties/landlord have failed to prove that the tenant -petitioner has caused any damage to the building or that he has made any material alteration in the building. With regard to the payment of rent, the learned SCC Court found that the tenant-petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and as such he was not entitled to get the benefit of the provision of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the learned SCC Court, by means of the impugned judgment and decree allowed the suit and passed decree for ejectment of the tenant/ petitioner and also passed a decree for payment of arrears of rent and damages.