HARIDEV MISRA Vs. 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India arising out of a Suit No. 285 of 1981 by Jamuna Dass Agrawal, respondent No. 2, and Smt. Ketki Devi, respondent No. 3, against the petitioner, for arrears of rent and damages and for ejectment from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The property in dispute is a house, situate in Mohalla Ali Nagar South in the district of Gorakhpur. This is a second innings of this Court. The matter had earlier come to this Court by means of a writ petition No. 8889 of 1984, decided on 29th August, 1984, by which the order of the revisional Court was quashed and the revisional Court was directed to rehear the revision within three months of the receipt of the judgement of this Court.

(3.) The suit was filed on the allegations, that the petitioner is a tenant in the first floor of the house in dispute. It was alleged that the petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 70/- and he was further liable to pay Rs. 3/- as water and electricity charges per month. The allegation was that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since July, 1979, and that he did not even pay the electricity charges since August, 1981 to November, 1981, a notice of demand dated 17th November, 1981, determining the tenancy of the petitioner as also demanding the arrears of rent was served upon him on 21st November, 1981. Since the arrears of rent were not paid in accordance with the notice of demand, a suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation and for recovery of Rs. 2,560.68 p. as arrears of rent etc. The petitioner contested the suit mainly on the ground that the rate of rent was not Rs. 70/- per month. His case was that the rate of rent was only Rs. 40/- per month and that besides rent, he was provided with furniture for which he paid Rs. 30/- per month. He, however, admitted that he had to pay Rs. 3/- as water charges per month. His case further was that after the tenancy commenced, he returned the furniture and, therefore, he is not liable to pay furniture charges.