RAMAUTAR VARMA Vs. MUKESH RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/landlord.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that O.S. No.313 of 1998 (Mukesh Rastogi v. Ramoutar Varma) was filed by the respondent-plaintiff/ landlord before the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (S.D.), Bijnor, invoking the provision of Section 20 of Act No.13 of 1972 for ejectment of the petitioner-defendant. The said suit was permitted to be withdrawn by the concerned court by order dated 28.7.2004 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1500/-. Liberty was also granted to file the case before the appropriate court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/landlord the said suit was withdrawn for reason that it was filed without any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff/landlord gave six months notice dated 14.8.2004 to the petitioner-defendant terminating tenancy on account of his bonafide need. It is undisputed that the said notice was duly received by the petitioner defendant on 16.8.2004. After waiting for a period of six months, the respondent-plaintiff filed a P.A. Case No.06 of 2005 (Mukesh Rastogi v. Ramoutar Varma) on 7.7.2005 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(S.D.), Bijnor, under Section 21 of Act No.13 of 1972 on the ground of bonafide need of the disputed shop. The said P.A. Case was contested by the petitioner-defendant and, thereafter, it was decided by the concerned court below by judgment and order dated 27.2.2016, in favour of the respondent-plaintiff/landlord.