KHANNA BROTHERS Vs. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two revisions, one filed by tenant for setting aside decree for ejectment and arrears of rent and other filed by landlord for enhancing arrears, primary controversy that arose for consideration is if the suit filed under Sub -section (2) Clause (e) of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 could be decreed even if it was found that sub -letting was done prior to commencement of the Act and was in respect of a building to which the old Rent Control Act did not apply.

(2.) MATERIAL allegations on which the suit was filed were that M/s. Khanna Brothers a partnership firm was tenant of premises in dispute at Rs. 400/ - per month, besides water -tax, drainage -tax and electricity charges. In August 1978 its partner sub -let premises illegally without obtaining permission of the District Magistrate. And as the premises were constructed in 1967 provisions of Act XIII of 1972 were applicable, therefore, a notice of demand for arrears of rent since June 1978 and notice for termination of tenancy was served on 8th September 1978. Landlord further claimed water -tax at the rate of Rs. 6 -1/4 per cent, drainage tax at Rs. 1 -14 percent and electricity dues at rate of Rs. 100/ -per month with effect from 9th November 1978 to 15th December 1979. In reply it was pleaded that three partners out of six of Khanna Brothers entered into partnership with two others in the name of ' Plastic Fabrication Industries' and it came into existence in January 1975 but closed in June 1977. Allegations of sub -letting were denied. Claim of water -tax and Drainage tax was also denied. Regarding electricity dues it was claimed that meter was installed and payment was regularly made on consumption recorded in the meter. Plea of res -judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure was also raised, as a suit filed in 1976 for ejectment and arrears without any pleading of sub -letting was dismissed.

(3.) ALTHOUGH finding of sub -letting was challenged but it is unnecessary to examine it, as submission of Learned Counsel for tenant on the question of law appears to be well founded. On fact admitted that building was constructed in 1967 coupled with finding that premises were sub -let in 1975, the question is if the suit could be decreed under Section 20(2)(e) of the Act. For this it is necessary to extract material part of Section 20. It reads as under: