YADAV MOTORS Vs. HITENDRA KUMAR AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenants' revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 13th August, 2004 passed in SCC Suit No. 13 of 1997, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,46,900/-, damages amounting to Rs. 16,200/- and future damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day and also for ejectment of the defendants/tenants, who are applicants in the above revision.

(2.) HITENDRA Kumat Ahuja and A. K. Ahuja the two brothers instituted SCC Suit No. 13 of 1997 against the present applicants and Rajpal Singh Yadav, defendant/proforma respondent No. 3 in the revision on the allegations that they let out the disputed show room/property to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/ -. The defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. Initially monthly rent used to be paid by single cheque in their joint names subsequently on the ground of convenience, it was agreed upon by the defendants/tenants that they would pay separate cheques to each plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The defendants had paid the rent up to September, 1994 to the plaintiff No. 1 and up to November, 1994 to the plaintiff No. 2 and thus, the rent up to October 1994 stands paid up. The defendants defaulted in payment of rent since November, 1994 inspite of the repeated demands and a notice terminating the tenancy dated 3rd January, 1997 was sent which was personally served on 13th January, 1997 on defendant No. 1 and on 21st January, 1997 on defendant Nos. 2 and 3. They have failed to vacate the premises in question after the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The plea that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the monthly rent is more than Rs. 2,000/- hence the building is exempt was also pleaded.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present revision is at the instance of defendant No. 1, M/s Yadav Motors and defendant No. 2 Kunwar Pal Singh Yadav. Defendant No. 3 Sri Rampal Singh Yadav has not come forward to challenge the judgment and decree of the Court below.