GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. SMT. RATNA KEWALRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6 -10 -1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/XI Additional District Judge, Agra in SCC Suit No. 16 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the court below has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the applicant who was the tenant of a portion of house No. 32A/A -572 Kamla Nagar, Agra on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/ - besides the water charges and electric charges.

(2.) FACTS of the case may be noticed in brief. After termination of the tenancy by means of a notice dated 15 -3 -1997 served under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, SCC suit No. 16 of 1997 was filed on the pleas inter alia that the defendant applicant was a tenant of the house No. 32A/A -572 Kamla Nagar, Agra leaving one room. The tenancy has been determined by means of a notice dated 15 -3 -1997 served on 17 -3 -1997. Inspite of service of the notice, the defendant tenant has neither paid the arrears of rent since February, 1996 nor he vacated the tenanted accommodation. The said property was let out in the year 1992 with the understanding that he will obtain an allotment order in his favour under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, but failed. The suit was contested by filing a written statement. However, the defence of the tenant defendant was struck of for non -compliance of provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, as amended in the State of U.P. The plaintiff opposite party led the evidence in support of her case. The suit has been decreed exparte by the judgment dated 6 -10 -1998 which is under challenge.

(3.) SRI Madhav Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the revision has urged that the notice determining the tenancy is invalid as there is no demand of arrears of rent therein. He submits that the demand of arrears of rent is an essential ingredient of such a notice, specially when the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the building. Secondly, the judgment under revision is vitiated as the court below has not recorded any finding holding that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent for four months or more on the date of the notice. Lastly, in the notice, there is no averment that the tenancy of the defendant applicant is terminated by the notice and therefore, there is no termination of the tenancy. In reply, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party submits that there is material on record to show that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent for more than four months on the date of the notice. The plaintiff landlady produced the evidence in the shape of oral and documentary, to show that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent for four months and more on the date of the notice. There being no material to the contrary, the court below has rightly passed the decree for eviction etc. In other words, even if specific finding has not been recorded, the said finding is implicit in the judgment and this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, may satisfy itself as to whether there is any evidence on record to show that the defendant tenant was not in arrears of rent for four months or more on the date of the notice or not. The notice terminating the tenancy, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is valid and no interference in the present revision is called for.