NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GHANSHYAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree D/- 8-1-1997 recorded by the District Judge. Mathura, exercising small causes powers in SCC Suit No.6 of 1994. On an undertaking by the plaintiffrespondents the execution of the decree has been kept suspended till the date of judgment.

(2.) The suit was filed for eviction of the tenantrevisionists from the suit premises situated in the city of Mathura. The defendants had admittedly been tenants on month to month basis in the suit premises on a rate of rent of Rs. 5,705.00 per month. Initially the tenancy was created for a period of three years with stipulation for extension of the period up to 3 years more subject to enhancement of rent by 15 per cent. The extended period of tenancy was to expire on 15th Dec. 1993. Before the aforesaid date of expiry, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendants on 20-7-1993 demanding vacant possession of the suit premises after expiry of extended period of tenancy. On receipt of the notice, the defendants started negotiating for taking the building on a fresh lease on 20 percent enhancement of the rate of rent for a further period of five years. The negotiations, however, failed. The building was constructed, according to the plaintiff, in the year 1987, the rate of rent was more than Rs. 2000.00 per month and the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable for any matter relating to the landlord tenant relationship. A notice under S. 106. T P Act was sent to the tenants on 30th Aug. 1994, for terminating their tenancy. Replies were sent to such notice but possession was not made over.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. The tenancy was dot denied nor was the rate of rent. It was asserted that the original period of lease was extended up to 15th Nov. 1993. It was asserted, however, that the building was constructed for more than 50 years back and on that score exclusion of operation of the U. P. Act No. 13 of l972 could not have been claimed. The defendants highlighted the fact that even after the receipt of the notice of termination of tenancy, the defendants had made over the rent of the building to the plaintiff who had accepted the same and this acceptance was under the law a waiver of the notice of determination of the tenancy. The suit was filed, according to the defendant-appellant, only with a view to enhance the rent of the building.