PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the erstwhile tenant Sri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, and his heirs i.e. his widow, sons and daughters arrayed as respondent No. 1 to 1/7 and also against Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Regional Office, Agra, respondent No.2.

(2.) The revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Judge Small Causes / Special Judge (SC/ ST Act ), Etah, in Small Causes Suit No. 04 of 1998 Praveen Kumar Jain vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta and another ) rejecting the suit for eviction filed by the tenant.

(3.) The facts necessary for a decision of the controversy are to the effect that the revisionist being owner of godown surrounded by a boundary wall (hereinafter referred to as a suit property) rented it out to Sri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, since deceased, on monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- excluding taxes and electricity charges. It has been contended that when the respondent No. 1 failed to fulfill the conditions of the tenancy, the revisionist gave a legal notice on 20.02.1998 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, mentioning therein that the tenant had been in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.1.1998 and had also caused damage to the suit property and despite repeated requests had not carried out the repairs thereof, and had also not paid Rs. 7,680 i.e. the expenses relating to some building materials used for repairs. The revisionist did not wish to continue the tenancy of the respondent No. 01 and therefore, directed him to pay the arrears of rent as well as Rs. 7,680/- along with interest thereon, and vacate the premises within 30 days. On failure to pay and to vacate damages at the rate of 25,000/- per month would be payable for which the Landlord would have to institute a civil suit in the competent Court and the cost of litigation would also be payable.