KALEEM Vs. CHHOTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Farrukhabad, dated 2.9.2009 by which the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed and the applicant has been directed to evict the shop in dispute within a period of two months. It has been further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards arrears of rent and Rs. 1,500/- per month towards damages.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the shop in dispute has been let out to the applicant for the period from 4.1.2004 to 5.1.2006, in respect of which a rent agreement has also been executed, in which the rent fixed was Rs. 1,200/- per month. It appears that the applicant has paid the rent upto December, 2006 and stopped making payment of rent from January, 2007. The respondent-landlord issued a notice dated 30.8.2007 terminating the tenancy and asking the applicant to evict the shop in dispute and to pay the arrears of rent and also damages. However, when the premises was not vacated within 30 days, Suit No. 6 of 2007 was filed. The suit was contested by the applicant on the ground that the rent was not Rs. 1,200/- but Rs.100/- per month; when the landlord refused to accept the rent, the same was deposited under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; in a blank stamp paper his signature has been obtained and the rent deed has been subsequently prepared; the rent deed was not admissible as the period of tenancy was more than one year and it should be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The trial court has decreed the suit and has held that as per rent agreement the rent was Rs. 1,200/- per month. It was agreed between the parties that after expiry of the period of agreement the premises shall be vacated. The rent was not paid as agreed and, therefore, the applicant was in arrears of rent. It was also held that by the notice dated 30.8.2007 the tenancy has been terminated and since the premises has not been vacated within 30 days, the cause of action arose after expiry of 30 days. On these facts, he directed the eviction of the applicant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the landlord has earlier issued the notice dated 26.7.2007 asking the applicant to evict the shop. He submitted that the notice dated 30.8.2007 has not been filed. He further submitted that there is no finding that the tenancy has been terminated by the notice dated 30.8.2007. He further submitted that the rent was Rs. 100/- per month and not Rs. 1,200/- per month and the same was deposited under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the refusal by the landlord, and therefore, there was no default on the part of the applicant. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of R.S. Negi v. Vishnu Sahai Verma and another reported in 2006 (2) ARC 566 and the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. Smt. Pushpa Wati reported in 2003 All. C.J. 1664 wherein it has been held that by the notice the tenancy must be terminated.