ANIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. SMT. MANJU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, assisted by Sri Om Prakash for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Siddharth for the plaintiff - respondent.

(2.) A perusal of the record reveals that as many as eight points were framed for determination. The point on which the decision of the suit turns is as to what was the agreed rate of rent of the premises in dispute. According to the plaintiff, the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 2,500.00 per month whereas according to the defendant it was Rs. 500.00 per month. The court below came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500.00 per month and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the premises and since there was termination of tenancy by a valid notice, the defendant was liable to be evicted.

(3.) The judgment and decree passed by the court below has been assailed by attacking the finding returned on the rate of rent. The finding on the said issue has been assailed on the ground that there was no documentary evidence either in the form of a rent agreement or rent note or rent receipt in respect of the agreed rate of rent between the parties, therefore, the court below was required to assess the oral evidence and come to a definite conclusion as to whether oral evidence led by the plaintiff was more reliable and acceptable than that of the defendant. But the court below did not at all analyse the oral evidence of the parties and failed to record satisfaction as to why the oral evidence led by the plaintiff was acceptable and preferable to that of the defendant. It has been urged that the tenant had produced quinquennial municipal assessment record to disclose that for the period 2003-09 the building, of which the accommodation in dispute was a part, was assigned annual value of Rs. 11520.00 which negated the landlord's claim that the rent was Rs. 2,500.00 per month inasmuch as with that rate of rent, the annual value would have been Rs. 30,000.00 or above. Further, to prove the assessment record, Tax Inspector of Nagar Nigam was examined as DW - 3 who deposed that annual value of a building is fixed on the basis of self-assessment form filed by the owner, which suggested that the rate of rent claimed by the landlord was not correct and was rather overstated. It has been urged that the trial court although noticed the above document as also the statement but failed to analyse the same in the context in which it was led by the party thereby vitiating the finding. Lastly, it was urged that there were two other witnesses, namely, DW - 4 and DW - 5, who were examined by the defendant to disclose that the agreed rate of rent of the shop in question was Rs. 500.00 per month but the trial court did not at all advert to their testimony while returning the finding on the rate of rent, therefore, the finding of the trial court on the issue of rate of rent is vitiated also for non - consideration of relevant evidence.