SATNAM KAUR Vs. SARDAR SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT JSCC revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2009 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in JSCC suit No.50 of 2008, decreeing the same for ejectment and arrears of rent.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that plaintiff-opposite party is owner and landlord of premises No.46, MIG, Barra-3, Kanpur Nagar, which he had purchased from Kanpur Development Authority on 27.08.2004. In the said premises Smt. Satnam Kaur was inducted as tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.1600/-. It has been contended that the defendant had not been paying rent since 05.01.2007; notice was given to her on 27.11.2007, which was duly served on her on 29.11.2007, but rent was not paid, as such tenancy stood terminated; thereafter suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was contested by filing written statement, contending therein that the building in question is old and her husband was tenant therein at the rate of Rs.100/- per month; the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are applicable and she is not in arrears of rent. From the side of plaintiff P.W. 1 Sardar Surjit Singh appeared and made statement. Documentary evidence was also filed. From the side of defendant Smt. Satnam Kaur appeared. Three issues were framed. Judge, Small Cause has recorded finding that there existed landlord-tenant relationship and the notice which was sent was valid notice, and as tenant was in arrears of rent, as such suit was decreed.

(3.) FACTUAL position which emerges in the present case is that Judge Small Cause has taken into account paper No.15C, which was an agreement between the parties. Execution of the said document has been proved and the said document clearly demonstrated and established that there existed landlord-tenant relationship, and further copy of receipts had also been produced to show that the same was issued in the name of Smt. Satnam Kaur. Theory which has been set up to the effect that her husband was tenant, was totally belied from the aforesaid documents. Thus, in the present case finding of fact has been returned that there existed landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent was Rs.1600/- per month. Such a finding is not liable to be interfered with. Once finding of fact has been returned that there existed landlord-tenant relationship and valid notice had been given, then in this background suit has been rightly decreed. The judgment and order passed by court below does not suffer from any infirmity.