MAHENDRA NATH TANDON Vs. VITH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar. Deletion of prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by respondent No. 2, dated 6.9.95, whereby the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was decreed for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop situated on the ground floor of the building No. 112/342, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, herainafter referred to as the 'shop in question', for recovery of arrears of rent and Municipal taxes. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 13.12.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

(2.) IN brief, it was pleaded by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner was a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs. 100. Petitioner fell in arrears of rent and did not pay the same from 23.11.91 to 30.11.92 amounting to Rs. 1227. The amount of municipal taxes was also not paid by the petitioner, therefore, by means of a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 26.12.92, which was served upon him on 27.1.93, he was called upon to pay the arrears of rent, etc, and to vacate the shop in question within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of notice dated 26.12.92, but neither the rent was paid nor the shop in question was vacated. Therefore, the suit was filed for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question and recovery of rent and the amount of municipal taxes on the ground of default on 16.2.93.

(3.) IN support of their respective cases, the parties have led their evidence. The trial Court framed as many as five issues and held that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not refuse to accept the money order, petitioner committed default in payment of rent, as the amount of rent and taxes was not paid by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of demand and termination of tenancy was valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of subsection (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings, the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 6-9-96.