SURESH CHANDRA SACHDEVA Vs. NIRMALA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, against the order dated 27.2.2006, passed by the court below rejecting Application No. 32C filed by him under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay further proceedings of S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 2004 till the disposal of Original Suit No. 789 of 2004.

(2.) It is not in dispute that Smt. Nirmala Gupta is landlady and the present applicant Suresh Chandra Sachdeva is the tenant of Smt. Nirmala Gupta. S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 2004 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the present applicant on the pleas inter alia that the defendant is tenant of disputed shop in pursuance of the registered agreement dated 10.7.2002 @ Rs. 3,000 per month as defaulted in payment of rent in spite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. It was further stated that earlier one Pushpa Tyagi and Dinesh Tyagi were tenants of two shops described as shops No. 1 and 2 out of four shops of the landlady. On vacation of the shops by Pushpa Tyagi and Dinesh Tyagi the aforesaid two shops were converted into one shop by raising a big one shop as they were in dilapidated condition and the defendant had expressed his willingness to take one big shop. The intervening wall of the two shops was removed and for the sake of convenience two shutters were fixed. The newly constructed shop was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000 with effect from 10.7.2002. It was agreed under the aforesaid rent agreement that there would be enhancement of 10% in the rent after each succeeding two years. The defendant has sub-let the shop from time to time to Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Dr. S.S. Mughlanjl and Dr. R.P.. Singh and thus violated the terms of the written agreement. It was further pleaded that the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the monthly rent is more than Rs. 2,000.

(3.) The suit is being contested on the pleas inter alia that provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable as constructions are old one and that two shops on monthly rent of Rs. 1,500 for each shop was taken in pursuance of the rent note, aforesaid. The further plea is that the landlady got different terms and conditions other than one which were agreed upon incorporated in the aforesaid registered rent note and that he has already filed Suit No. 789 of 2004 for declaration declaring that rent note dated 10.7.2002, executed between the parties with regard to tenanted shop and which was registered at the Sub Registrar Office is null and void.