AERO INDIA TRAVELS Vs. MOHAN LAL KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE defendant of S. C. C. Suit No. 46 of 1988 has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24th May, 2007 by which the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to handover vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff within one month and also to pay Rs. 5,030/- towards the arrears of rent. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2008 by which the revision filed by it under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the judgment was dismissed.

(2.) THE said S. C. C. Suit No. 46 of 1988 had been filed by Mohan Lal Khatri who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this petition. During the pendency of the suit, he sold the disputed house to Satya Narain Singh by a registered sale deed dated 6th September, 2006 and Satya Narain Singh was subsequently impleaded as plaintiff No. 2. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of House No. 135-A, Rama Devi Chauraha G. T. Road, Kanpur; that the defendant was a tenant of a portion of House No. 135-A consisting of one shop (privately numbered as shop No. 1) measuring 12 ft x 8 ft situate on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-excluding water tax and sewer tax; that the building was exempted from the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in view of the provisions of section 2 (2) of the Act as the suit had been filed within ten years from the date on which the construction of the building was completed; that a notice dated 27th November, 1987 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for termination of tenancy and for payment of arrears of rent and though this notice was served upon the defendant on 2nd December, 1987 but the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did he handover the vacant possession of the premises.

(3.) THE defendant filed a written statement mentioning therein that it was a tenant in a portion of House No. 135-A on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and the portion under its tenancy consisted of two rooms, two verandahs and sehan on the ground floor and the plaintiff was not correct in asserting that the defendant was a tenant of only one room or that the rent was Rs. 150/- per month and that the building was not exempted from the operation of the Act. Number of documents were filed by the parties including paper No. 51-Ga by the plaintiff and paper No. 166-Ga by the defendant. Paper No. 51-Ga was the Municipal assessment showing assessment of tax w. e. f. 1st October, 1978 while paper No. 166-Ga showed the assessment of tax w. e. f. 1st April, 1978.