RASHMI ANAND Vs. NEELESH RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been finally heard at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The tenant- revisionist has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against order dated 26.07.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.39 of 2016, whereby the application filed by the tenant-revisionist under Order XV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure (here-in-after referred to as the "C.P.C."), has been rejected and the defence of the tenant-revisionist has been struck off.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party-landlord filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the tenant-revisionist with the averments that he along with his father Sri Krishna Murari Rastogi, constructed the apartment on Plot No.1/5-A, Sector-C, Aliganj, Lucknow. Since Sri Krishna Murari Rastogi is 85 years of old and is sick, therefore, he authorised his son the opposite party to file the present suit against the opposite party. His father had raised the construction of three floors having three flats on each floor. All the flats except one, were sold to its purchasers. Flat No.S-1 situated on the second floor was let out to the tenant-revisionist on monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. The flat was let out to the tenant-revisionist looking to the good relations between late husband of the tenant-revisionist and the opposite party. The tenancy commenced with effect from 01.01.2012. It was also pleaded by the opposite party that since the husband of the tenant-revisionist was not having good health, therefore, he requested the opposite party to receive the rent after his recovery from illness. The husband of the tenant-revisionist handed over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) to the opposite party on 30.03.2016. This cheque was given to clear the previous arrears of rent. However, no rent was paid after that. Thus, the revisionist failed to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 01.04.2016. The husband of the revisionist died on 10.05.2016. Since the revisionist failed to pay the monthly rent as agreed, the opposite party-landlord served a notice dated 15.06.2016, calling upon the revisionist to clear the outstanding rent and also terminating his tenancy. The revisionist inspite of service of notice, neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the flat. The opposite party-landlord prayed for a decree of eviction of the revisionist, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent.