NAVNEET DIXIT Vs. KAMLA GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the defendant/ petitioner assailing the judgement dated 31.3.2017 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No.568 of 1974 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The petitioner has also challenged the judgement and decree dated 10.8.2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Agra in SCC Revision No.17 of 2017 dismissing the revision.

(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that SCC Suit No. 568 of 1974 was instituted by Sukhdev Das Gandhi, predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff/respondents against Shyam Sundar Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein. The suit was founded on the allegation that the defendant, who was tenant of a premises in pursuance of an allotment order, had defaulted in payment of rent since the inception of tenancy i.e., from 10.7.1958 and had failed to pay the same despite notice dated 8.12.1973 served upon him on 10.12.1973. It was alleged that the rent of the premises as agreed between the parties was Rs. 40.00 per month besides house tax and water tax. However, the defendant got the premises allotted at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month. It was further alleged that after enforcement of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'), the plaintiff became entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 25.56 per month besides taxes.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement claiming that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 17/- per month as fixed under the allotment order issued by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He disputed that there was any agreement for rent being paid at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The defendant also pleaded that since rent was less than Rs. 25/- per month, therefore, the plaintiff never became entitled to claim enhanced rent after enforcement of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 nor was entitled to house tax and water tax. It was also the categorical case of the defendant that he had paid the entire rent at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month to the plaintiff from time to time and after receipt of notice only rent of two month was due, which was duly remitted by two money orders each of Rs. 17/-, thus there was no default in payment of rent.