SARDAR TARVINDER SINGH Vs. SARDAR RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.1989 passed by Sri S. K. Raturi. the then Judge, Small Cause Courts III (Additional District Judge) Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit Wo. 43 of 1987, Sardar Ranjit Singh and 2 others v. Smt. Harminder Kaur and 2 others, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff Sardar Ranjit Singh. Sardar Jagir Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur against the defendants Smt. Harrninder Kaur, Sardar Tarvinder Singh and Hem Kund Enterprises (through Sardar Tarvinder Singh) for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 1,905.73 arrears of rent and taxes and recovery of damages for use and occupation from the date of the suit, i.e., 24.6.1987 up to the date of ejectment at the rate of 10% water tax at the rate of 12% and Sever tax at the rate of 3% on the amount of damages.

(2.) The suit had been brought by the plaintiff-opposite parties with the allegations that as per her proposed letter dated 16.12.1985 Ext. 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement") the defendant No. 1 Smt. Harminder Kaur took the disputed shop which was part of property No. 25 (old No. 3) Saharanpur Road. Dehradun from plaintiffs at the monthly rent of Rs. 375 and also undertook to pay house tax, water tax and the electricity charges as per sub-meters besides the amount of rent, that defendant No. 2 Sardar Tarvinder Singh who was the husband of the defendant No. 1 paid the rent and taxes up to March. 1987 and the electricity charges up to 5.5.1987 to Sardar Iqbal Singh Mukhtar-e-am of the plaintiffs, that the defendant No. 2 had sent the rent of April, 1986 through cheque to Inder Singh but the bank did not encash the cheque for want of the name of the branch of the bank therein, that the disputed shop was a new construction and it was for the first time let out to the defendant No. 1 "Smt. Harminder Kaur on rent and that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Urban Buildings Act) are not applicable to the disputed shop, that a notice of demand of arrears of rent and of termination of tenancy dated 22.6.1987 was served on defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which was served on 25.6.1987 but the defendant No. 2 did not comply and defendant No. 2 sent a reply setting out that it was the defendant No. 3 who was the tenant, that though the objection of the defendants was baseless, the plaintiffs to avoid unnecessary dispute, sent a second notice on 17.7.1987 to defendant Nos. 1. 2 and 3 about the arrears of rent and for terminating the tenancy, that the notice was personally served on defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 24.7.1987 but the defendant No. 1 refused to accept the notice sent to her by registered post, that a copy of the notice was also affixed on the disputed shop on 10.8.1987, that despite this notice, the defendants did not vacate the shop but on 27.7.1987 the defendant No. 2 sent a cheque of Rs. 1,200 to Iqbal Singh Mukhtar-e-am of the plaintiffs but it was returned to defendant No. 2. In the suit, the plaintiffs demanded ejectment, arrears of rent and taxes and also damages for use of occupation at the rate of Rs. 15 per day.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It was claimed that no agreement was executed, that the defendant No. 2 was the tenant, that there was an oral agreement with Iqbal Singh, person authorised by the plaintiff, but he was entitled to take proceedings for vacation. It was claimed that the disputed property had been taken on rent for a period of 10 years under which it was agreed that since the tenancy was for a long period, the defendant No. 2 will pay a sum of Rs. 23,000 to the plaintiff Sri Iqbal Singh, that they would not be evicted for 10 years. It was admitted that the rent of the disputed shop was agreed Rs. 375 per month and claimed that Rs. 25 was to be paid as tax. It was claimed that the payment of rent had been made upto May, 1987. It was further claimed that the construction of the disputed property was made before April, 1976 and in these circumstances U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applied to it. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs had no right to terminate their tenancy. The defendant No. 1 did not file W.S. despite service of notice. Her husband Tarvinder Singh, defendant No. 2 stated at the trial that she had knowledge of the suit all along.