LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-27

JAGDISH CHAND KASHYAP Vs. MALTI AGARWAL AND ORS.

Decided On September 24, 2015
Jagdish Chand Kashyap Appellant
V/S
Malti Agarwal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of a shop in building no. 343-A (private no. 343-A/10 and present no.917) Jokhan Bagh, Civil Lines, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop in dispute'). The landlord of the shop is Smt. Malti Agarwal (the respondent herein).

(2.) Before the petitioner was inducted as the tenant of the shop in dispute, he was occupying another smaller shop in the same building, in pursuance of a lease agreement dated 27.5.1981 whereunder, the rent was Rs.500/- per month and the tenancy was for a period of 15 years with an option of renewal for a further period of five years. It is admitted case of the parties that in the year 1986-87, an adjoining shop in the tenancy of one Mohd. Qamar was got vacated and the said shop alongwith the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner, were merged together by undertaking extensive modifications and constructions. Whereas, the shop earlier in the tenancy of the petitioner measured 12.6' x 14.6', the new shop i.e., the disputed shop, now measures 30' x 20'. In pursuance of an oral agreement between the parties, the rent of the disputed shop was enhanced to Rs.750/- per month, out of which Rs.250/- was to be adjusted in the expenses incurred by the petitioner in remodelling the structure.

(3.) The respondent-landlord filed SCC Suit no. 8 of 1991 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, the respondent-landlord took a specific plea that the disputed shop now in the tenancy of the petitioner since 1.2.1987, is a new construction within the meaning of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, The Act and is exempt from the provisions thereof. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement in which it was admitted that during the year 1986-87, after getting the adjoining shop vacated from Mohd. Qamar, the two shops were merged together. However, it was pleaded that there was no default in payment of rent and tenancy of the petitioner was of a permanent nature and thus, he could not be evicted.