TRILOKI NATH TANDON Vs. A K BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 has been filed by the landlord against that portion of the judgment and decree of the Judgment, Small Cause Courts by which the relief for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute was denied.

(2.) SCC Suit No. 82 of 1984 had been instituted on 30th May, 1984 by Triloki Nath Tandon against Sri A. K. Bhattacharya with the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and landlord of premises No. 17/3-J, Bihari Lal Estate, The Mall, Kanpur; that the agreed rate of rent of the accommodation in possession of the defendant situated within the aforesaid premises was Rs. 1500/- per month besides Rs. 250/- per month towards other amenities and privileges which formed part of the rent; that the building was constructed and completed on or about 30th September, 1972 and was assessed with effect from 1st October, 1972 but since the property was constructed substantially from out of the loans taken from the Life Insurance Corporation, the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act') was not applicable; that the defendant had not paid rent from 1st October, 1983 upto 23rd May, 1984; that the tenancy had been terminated by the notice dated 21st April, 1984 sent under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act with effect from the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice and the tenant was asked to deliver possession of the accommodation and pay arrears of rent and that the said notice was served upon the defendant on 23rd April, 1984 but the tenant did not handover the vacant possession and nor did he pay the arrears of rent. The suit was, therefore, filed with a prayer that the defendant be evicted from the premises in dispute and the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent may be decreed.

(3.) A Written Statement was filed by the defendant. It was stated that the suit accommodation was in the tenancy of M/s. Medimix and not in the tenancy of Sri A. K. Bhattacharya; that Sri A. K. Bhattacharya at the time of inception of the tenancy was the partner of M/s. Medimix; that the premises was taken on rent for manufacturing purposes; that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rent from 1st October, 1983 to 23rd May, 1984 as rent up to 31st August, 1984 had been paid; that the notice dated 21st April, 1984 was not served on the defendant and alternatively the notice referred to in the plaint was illegal because the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes and the tenancy could have been terminated by giving six months notice and not one month notice.