RAKESH JAIN Vs. SHARDA DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT civil revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Judge Small Cause/Additional District, Court No.8, Agra in SCC No. 37 of 2002 Smt Sharda Devi Jain Versus Rakesh Jain.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Suit No. 37 of 2002 had been instituted for arrears of rent and ejectment and damages on the ground that plaintiff/respondent is landlady of the premises in question and Rakesh Jain was let out the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month since last about one and half decade back and then it was enhanced in the year 1998 Rs.1,595/-, in the year 2000 to Rs. 1,755/- and currently at the rate of Rs. 1,930.50 per month. Defendant/revisionist was not regular in making payment and he had made payment in the year 1998 wherein Rs. 12,270/- was less towards rent and Rs. 880/- was less toward water charges and receipt was issued on 16.6.1999. Thereafter, rent was not paid, notice was given and then suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra, claiming Rs. 17,567.20 and thereafter wrong reply was received then present suit in question was got instituted claiming amount of Rs.38,687.50 due. Suit was contested by tenant in question by contending that premises was let at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month and it was subsequently increased to Rs. 1090/- per month, which was inclusive all taxes. It was stated that pressure was exerted to increase the rent, then rent had been sent by money order, same has been refused to be accepted by the plaintiff/respondent. Thereafter, deposit was made under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Misc. Case No. 173 of 1994 was instituted. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent started accepting rent by way of cheque and in this manner rent uptil December, 2000 had been paid. It has been contended that in January, 2001 plaintiff/respondent has taken Rs. 20,000/- by way of advance for repairing of the house, wherein Rs. 13,560/- was towards rent upto February, 2001 and further two cheque of Rs. 5265/- and Rs. 10,530/- were also given as advance rent, but plaintiff/respondent refused to accept, it was mentioned that provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and there is no default in payment of rent. Additional written statement was also filed and it was contended therein that initially rent was Rs. 750/- per month and same was increased to Rs. 900/- per month, which was inclusive water tax, electricity charges. In the year 1998 it was enhanced to Rs. 900/- and then it was enhanced to Rs. 1090 in September, 1989, rent in question was refused to be accepted, then deposits were made under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and and plaintiff/respondent has withdrawn the amount in question at the rate of Rs. 1,080/- and thereafter w.e.f. 1.7.1999 to December, 1999 rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 1,595 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to 30.42001 payment was made by cheque and then from 1.5.2001 to 31.12.2001 it was paid by cash and further it has been contended that on the first day of hearing, Rs. 15,000/- has been deposited. Plaintiff/respondent filed replica to the same and disputed the averments mentioned therein. From the side of plaintiff/respondent her husband Chandrabhan, and power of attorney holder appeared by filing affidavit, as PW-1 and Raj Kumar Shrotiya hand writing expert appeared as PW-II and Ravindra Kumar as PW-III appeared. From the side of defendant/revisionist he himself appeared as DW-I and hand writing expert Dr. O.P. Taneja also appeared as DW-II and report was also called for from Forensic Lab U.P., Agra. After respective evidence has come on record, Judge Small Cause Court has proceeded to decree the suit, at this juncture present civil revision has been filed.

(3.) SRI J.J. Munir, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent on the other hand contended that Judge Small Cause Court has recorded categorical finding of fact qua quantum of rent and has found that there is default and defendant/revisionist has been in arrears of rent and as such judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court is liable to be affirmed.