MOHD. ARIF Vs. SMT. KIRAN JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-revisionist has filed this revision against the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 75 of 2007, whereby the suit filed by the opposite parties for arrears of rent and ejectment has been decreed with cost directing the revisionist to vacate the premises in his occupation within a month and pay the arrears of rent amounting to rupees eighteen thousand within this period. It was also directed that the defendant-revisionist shall pay damages @ rupees five hundred per month from the date of termination of his tenancy.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the opposite parties are owners and landlords of house number 168/30 Ka (Old Nazirabad Road, Naaz Cinema Road), Lucknow in a portion of which the revisionist was tenant. It was pleaded by the opposite parties that the disputed shop was reconstructed in the year 1989 and was let out to the revisionist on payment of rupees four hundred as rent. The lease deed was also executed on 01.10.1990, according to which, the tenancy was for a period of five years but after a lapse of five years period, the lease was extended subject to twenty per cent increase in the rent. It was also pleaded that the lease was extended upto 03.11999 @ rupees five hundred per month. According to the opposite parties, since the premises was a new construction, therefore, the same was beyond the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 197 According to the opposite parties, the revisionist did not pay the rent with effect from 01.01.2000 and in the meantime the original lessor Vijay Prakash Jaiswal died leaving behind the opposite parties as his legal heirs. When the revisionist failed to pay the rent, notice was issued to him and after expiry of the notice period, suit No. 96 of 2000 was filed which was dismissed on 26.02004. Since the rate of rent and house number were wrongly mentioned in the plaint of that suit on account of mistake by the then counsel, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice was not valid. After the dismissal of suit, a fresh notice was issued to the revisionist on 01.09.2007 which was refused by him. Thereafter another notice was issued on 11.09.2007 which was served upon the revisionist on 15.09.2007. However, in spite of service of notice neither the arrears of rent was paid, nor the shop was vacated. The opposite parties then filed SCC Suit No. 75 of 2007.

(3.) The revisionist filed his written statement and contested the suit on the ground that he had no knowledge about the death of Vijay Prakash Jaiswal. He also pleaded that the agreed rate of rent was rupees four hundred per month and there was no reconstruction of the shop. He also denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further pleaded that he had been continuously depositing the rent in the court @ rupees four hundred per month. The suit was barred by principles of res judicata. He also denied having received any notice. The opposite parties filed replication to the written statement filed by the revisionist.