AJ PRAKASHAN LIMITED Vs. VINIT SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for defendant revisionist and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for plaintiff/respondents/landlord.

(2.) S.C.C. Revision No. 54 of 2017 arises from the judgment dated 15.12.2016 in S.C.C. Case No. 45 of 2007 (Vinit Sachdeva v. Aj Prakashan Ltd. and another). The S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 2017 arises from another judgment dated 15.12.2016 in S.C.C. Case No. 46 of 2007 {Smt. Santosh Sachdeva (dead) and another v. Aaj Prakashan Ltd. and another}. Both the aforesaid S.C.C. cases were filed by the plaintiff-respondents for eviction of the defendant revisionist from the disputed property No. 1/3B, Old No. 6-E, M.G. Road, Near St. Johns Crossing, Lohamandi Ward, Agra on account of default in payment of rent and also for recovery of rent with interest. Since the facts involved in both the aforesaid revisions are common and relate to one and the same property and tenant and as such with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, both the revisions are being heard together treating the S.C.C. Revision No. 54 of 2017 as leading revision and facts of that revision are being noted below. Facts Of The Case :

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondents had let out the disputed house to the revisionist-defendant w.e.f. 01.11.1989 at a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/-. On account of alleged default in payment of rent, the plaintiff/respondent issued a notice dated 28.06.1997 to the defendant revisionist whereby she terminated tenancy and demanded arrears of rent and vacant possession of the disputed house. The said notice was replied by the defendant-revisionist by reply dated 24.07.1997 in which he took the stand that the plaintiff-respondent had agreed to sell the disputed house to him and as advance received in cash Rs. 30,000/- on 01.03.1997, Rs. 30,000/- on 08.03.1997, Rs. 30,000/- on 15.03.1997 and Rs. 12,000/- on 22.03.1997, total Rs. 1,02,000/- and thus, the tenancy cannot be terminated and it still subsists and continuing and is protected by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The relevant portion of reply dated 24.07.1997 to the notice of the plaintiff-respondent dated 28.06.1997, is reproduced below:-