R S NEGI Vs. VISHNU SAHAI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. A. Qadeer learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Hari Ashok Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the caveator/opposite party No. 1.

(2.) This is a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2005, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Court No. 3/Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2004, Vishnu Sahai Verma and Anr. v. R.S. Negi.

(3.) A suit was instituted by the landlord for decree of eviction and decree of Rs. 4,877 (Rupees four thousand eight hundred seventy seven) towards water tax pendente lite future damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per day. The plaintiff/opposite parties were landlord of house No. 338, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which was let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 2,300 (Rupees two thousand three hundred) excluding water tax and electricity. The suit was instituted after giving a notice dated 2.8.2004. According to the plaintiffs, they terminated the tenancy by means of the aforesaid notice and the revisionist was required to vacate the house in question on expiry of notice and on failure to do so, the suit was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court. The provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable since the rent was more than Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand). The revisionist contested the suit by filing his written statement. The revisionist disputed that the water tax was not included in the rate of rent however, Rs. 2,300 (Rupees two thousand three hundred) towards rent including water tax was admitted by the tenant/ revisionist in paragraph No. 4 of the written statement. The revisionist raised objection regarding notice that it was illegal. The court below framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was regarding non-payment of water tax. Issue No. 2 was whether the defendant's tenancy has been terminated and the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the disputed accommodation? Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiffs/ landlord. The court below came to a conclusion that the tenant was not liable to pay water tax separately, therefore, the revisionist was not entitled to pay water tax whatsoever. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court came to a conclusion that the tenancy has been terminated by means of a valid notice and, therefore, the tenant was liable to handover vacant possession to the landlord / opposite parties. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by means of the impugned judgment.