SRI SATISH JAISWAL SON OF LATE SRI RAMJI PRASAD, SATISH TRADING COMPANY Vs. SRI RAMESHWARI PRASAD SON OF SRI ISHWARI PRASAD AND SMT. MAYA DEVI WIFE OF SRI RAMESHWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAISING a short controversy with regard to the validity of service of notice by refusal under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, the present revision is at the instance of tenant of a shop.

(2.) S .C.C Suit No. 1 of 1991 was instituted by the opposite parties herein for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,350/ -, damages, pendente lite and future, and ejectment of the defendant, who is applicant herein, in respect of a shop described at the foot of the plaint with the allegations that the shop in question is a 'new construction' within meaning of Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the tenancy has been determined by means of notice dated 8.1.1991 served by refusal on 12.1.1991. It was further pleaded that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1983 and was assessed to tax by the municipal authorities with effect from 1st of April, 1985 and as such the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,200/ - per month excluding the house tax and water tax. The arrears of rent was claimed since May, 1990.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as six issues were framed by the trial court. It has held that the rate of rent is Rs. 250/ - per month and not Rs. 1200/ -, the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the disputed shop is a 'new construction', the tenant is in arrears of rent since May, 1990 and his tenancy has been terminated validly by the notice which has been validly served on him, by the judgment and decree dated 29th of May, 2001.