SAROJ Vs. NAND KISHOR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Narendra Mohan for the petitioner; Sri Ashish Agrawal for the sole respondent; and perused the record.

(2.) This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and orders dated 27.08.2011 and 14.02.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Jhansi in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 43 of 2006 and Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Jhansi in S.C.C. Revision No. 194 of 2011 respectively.

(3.) The landlord-respondent had instituted SCC Suit No. 43 of 2006 for arrears of rent and eviction against tenant-petitioner, in respect of a shop, claiming that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month; that he had defaulted in payment of rent; and that by a notice, under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, his tenancy was duly terminated. It was also claimed that the accommodation in dispute was a new construction raised in the year 1994-95 and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. It appears that initially an ex parte decree was passed which was set aside and thereafter the suit was contested by the tenant- petitioner. The suit was contested by claiming that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the accommodation in dispute; that the notice was not duly served; and that while filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree, the entire decretal amount was deposited and therefore the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.