GULAB CHAND NAGARIA Vs. PIYUSH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Manish Tandon for the plaintiff-respondent. Sri Manish Tandon states that he does not wish to file any reply to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application therefore the revision may be decided finally at the fresh stage itself as all the relevant documents are already on record. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision is being decided finally at the fresh stage itself.

(2.) The instant revision under Sec. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been filed by the defendant-revisionist against the judgment and decree dated 4th March, 2016, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 179 of 2012.

(3.) A perusal of the record would go to show that S.C.C. Suit No.179 of 2012 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-revisionist for eviction; arrears of rent amounting to Rs.29332 for the period 01.10.2011 to 22.09.2012; mesne profits @ Rs. 150 per day from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. 23.09.2012 till institution of the suit i.e. 04.10.2012; pendent lite and future mesne profits @ Rs.150 per day; water tax for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2011 to 31.07.2012 amounting to Rs. 3500.00; cost, etc. Plaint case was that the plaintiff was co-owner and landlord of premises no.133/245, T.P. Nagar, Kanpur and defendant a tenant of one shop, bearing private shop no.2, on ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500.00 besides statutory taxes i.e. water tax, drainage tax @ 14% and 4% respectively. It was alleged that the tenancy was month to month and that the defendant-revisionist had been in default in payment of rent with effect from 1st Oct., 2011 to 31st July, 2012 and had also failed to pay water tax and drainage tax for the said period amounting to Rs.3500.00 and Rs.1000.00 respectively. It was claimed that by a composite notice dated 21st Aug., 2012, which was served on 22.08.2012, the arrears of rent, etc. was demanded and tenancy was terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of service thereof but, despite service of notice, the defendant neither vacated the premises in question nor paid the arrears of rent and taxes. It was alleged that as the rent was higher than Rs.2,000.00 per month, therefore, the accommodation was exempted from the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by virtue of Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act.