ASHISH Vs. SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the suit) by which the plaintiff's suit for possession after eviction of the defendant and for payment of arrears of rent and damages has been decreed.

(2.) The suit was instituted, inter alia, for possession; recovery of arrears of rent for the period up to 30.12.2012; and for damages at the rate of Rs. 150/ - per day with effect from 31.12.2012 up to the date of delivery of possession by the plaintiff -respondent against defendant -revisionist alleging that the plaintiff was exclusive owner -landlord of the shop in dispute of which the defendant was a tenant on rent of Rs. 2,500/ - per month, inclusive of water tax and house tax. It was pleaded that the tenancy was a month to month tenancy commencing from the first day of the month and terminating on the last day of the month and as the rent was higher than Rs. 2,000/ - per month, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. It was pleaded that the defendant -revisionist had paid rent only up to the month of January, 2009 and, thereafter, the rent was not paid despite repeated demand. It was pleaded that by a composite notice dated 29.11.2012 of demand as well as termination of tenancy, under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, which was served on the defendant on 30.11.2012, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 30.12.2012 and, thereafter, the defendant was liable to pay damages with effect from 31.12.2012 at the rate of Rs. 150/ - per day. It was pleaded that upon receipt of notice, the defendant sent a wrong reply dated 17.12.2012 which was replied by notice dated 24.01.2013.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement claiming that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. The owners were Sabbir Ahmad (father of the plaintiff), Irshad Ahmad and Amir Ahmad and that the defendant was a tenant on their behalf on rent of Rs.2500/ - p.m. inclusive of taxes. It was admitted that the tenancy was a month to month tenancy, commencing from the first day of the English calender month and ending on the last day of the month. It was claimed that the defendant had paid rent up to March, 2013 to the co -owner Irshad Ahmad, who had also issued receipt to the defendant. It was claimed that the plaintiff alone had no right to terminate the tenancy and as such the notice terminating tenancy was invalid.