KASHI NATH GUPTA Vs. DEVI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On March 6, 1986 the I Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur decided S.C.C. suit No. 4 of 1980. He decreed the suit as Judge, Small Causes. The present Revision Under Sec. 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act assails the decree. The applicant is Kashi Nath Gupta, Defendant. The suit was filed by Devi Lal who is the sole Plaintiff -opposite party.

(2.) The case of Devi Lal was that the monthly rate of rent of the house was Rs. 150/ - apart from the amount of water tax. This rent and water tax is due from Kashi Nath Gupta with effect from the period beginning January 1, 1977. It was not paid in spite of demand. On April 15, 1980 a combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy Under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to Kashi Nath Gupta. It was refused by him on April 26, 1980 In addition, the Plaintiff complained that the premises were let out to Kashi Nath Gupta for residential purpose but he put it to inconsistent user by carrying on timber business in it. On both the grounds of default and inconsistent user the decree for adjustment was sought. A claim was also made for realization of the amount of rent etc. in arrears.

(3.) Kashi Nath Gupta denied that the rate of rent is 150/ - per month. According to him, it was only Rs. 35/ - including tax. He alleged that the rent had been paid at the rate due. The rent for the month of January 1979 was tendered to the landlord Devi Lal in February, 1979 but was refused by him. It was then remitted thrice by money order which was also refused whereupon it was deposited Under Sec. 30 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The premises had been let out both for residential purpose and for carrying on business of timber. That business was being carried on in the premises since the inception of tenancy. The Plaintiff, according to the case of Kashi Nath, Defendant, was not entitled to the decree sought by him on either of the two grounds of default or inconsistent user of the premises. The suit was also liable to fail because the notice was neither valid nor served on him and was, in any case, waived by the Plaintiff himself.