RAM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. ALI HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2011 (Ali Husain v. Ram Prakash Gupta ) and judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Bareilly in SCC Revision No. 17 of 2015 (Ram Prakash Gupta v. Ali Husain ).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the landlord had filed a SCC Suit No. 10 of 2011 stating that the petitioner tenant is occupying the premises in question i.e. shop No. 4, Ansari Market, Mohanpur Road, Nakatiya, District Bareilly @ Rs.100/- per month as rent and that shop in question was constructed in year 1995, hence the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable and only the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would apply. Since the petitioner tenant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.06.2001 up to 31.03.2002 i.e. about 115 months a total sum of Rs.11,500/- was due as arrears of rent, the plaintiff-landlord issued a legal notice on 08.01.2011 demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was served personally upon the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner-tenant also replied to the said notice. The SCC Suit was filed thereafter. The petitioner-tenant while filing written statement denied all the allegations in plaint had specifically asserted that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and that he had not committed any default in payment of rent and had deposited the entire rent in Misc. Case No. 34 of 2002 under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after the landlord refused to accept the rent tendered by him through money order.

(3.) The Judge, Small Causes Court considered the evidence led by both the parties and framed one of the issues whether the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to the property in question. Since no documentary evidence was filed either by the tenant or by the landlord with regard to the date of first assessment of the shop in question, on the basis of the oral evidence/statement made during the examination in chief and cross examination of the witnesses, the learned Trial Court returned a finding that the tenant had admitted that he had taken the shop in question on rent one to two months after its construction and that his tenancy started sometimes in year 1994. On the basis of oral evidence recorded, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment and order dated 11.08.2015 and directed the tenant to evict the premises in question within two months and tender the rent for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit i.e. from 2008 only as granting of relief beyond that was barred by limitation.