SURINDER SINGH AHLUWAIIA Vs. SMT. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 1985, passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby the Respondent's suit for ejectment of the applicant from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits was decreed.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell, necessary for the decision of this civil revision, are that the Respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the applicant on the allegation that the applicant who was the tenant of the house in question on behalf of the Respondent was in arrears of rent for more than 4 months and had not paid the arrears inspite of a notice of demand having been served on him. Consequently he was a defaulter in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted on that ground. It was also asserted in the suit that the tenancy of the applicant had been terminated by serving upon him a notice in this behalf as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the applicant on the grounds that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent, that the notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and that the sum of Rs. 220/ - payable by with per month included the electricity consumption charges, house lax and water tax also. All these please have been negatived by the court below. It was also asserted by the applicant that since he has made the necessary deposit contemplated by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he was entitled to the benefit of that section which relieved him against his liability for eviction from the house in question on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. This plea also has been repelled by the court below on the finding that the wife of the applicant had constructed a house at Shastri Nagar in Ghaziabad and consequently in view of the proviso to Section 20(4) of the Act he was not entitled to the benefit of the said Section 20(4). The said proviso reads as thereunder:

(3.) SINCE the Respondent has put in appearance, this revision has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.