(1.) THE above revision was heard, decided and was dismissed by the judgment dated 18.2.2003. The said judgment has been set aside by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4162 of 2003 by the judgment dated 8th of May, 2003 on the ground that the High Court while dismissing the revision has not given the reasons for dismissal of the revision. The Apex Court noticed that operative part of the judgment of the High Court running into just a line or two is not preceded by any discussion, howsoever brief it might have been, on any of the pleas advanced and is bereft of any other reasoning or finding of its own. The matter was reheard consequently.
(2.) RAISING a short controversy the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 19th of January, 1989 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut in S.C.C Suit No.74 of 1987. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties herein, for ejectment of the defendant-applicant from a shop described at the foot of the plaint with the allegations that the said shop was constructed in the year 1981 and the suit having been filed within a period of 10 years i.e. in the year 1987, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable. The defendant was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.255/- and he was in arrears of rent since 4.2.1987. The tenancy has been determined by means of the notice dated 4.6.1987, it was replied on incorrect facts by the defendant on 3.7.1987. A sum of Rs.1275/- as arrears of rent, damages and pendente lite and future was claimed at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations on the pleas inter alia that the shop in dispute is an old construction. Its earlier municipal number was 2/670 which was changed to 3/326. It was recorded in the municipal record for the year 1967 -1968 and 1972-1973 as 2/672. Thereafter, in the year 1977-1978 and currently it bears municipal No.3/362. Deposit of rent under Section 30 (1) in Misc. Case No.79 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, Baghpat was also pleaded with the allegation that the rent has been deposited for the period up to June, 1987. The said shop was purchased by the present plaintiff from Smt. Santosh Kumari through registered letter dated 4th February, 1987. The defendant came to know of the transaction only on 25th of May, 1987. Incorrect boundaries of the shop in dispute have been given in the plaint. In paragraph 23 of the plaint it was stated that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1967-68 or earlier to it and as such the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are applicable. Benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act was also claimed vide para 24 of the written statement.
(3.) IT was found that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1981 and the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 does not apply, under the point No.1. The notice dated 25th of May, 1987 (Ext. 4) was found valid, under point No.2 and the said notice has not been waived. Under point no.3 the Court found that the defendant-tenant has failed to prove that he made any effort to make the payment of rent after receiving the notice within a period of 30 days and the tenant was held to be defaulter. Under the point no. 4 it was found that the plaintiffs no.2 and 3 have accepted a sum of Rs.1,530/- through money orders from the defendant much after the filing of the suit. The suit for ejectment and for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.255/- per month, pendente lite and future was decreed.