ADITYA BHUSHAN Vs. SUNIL KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2007 against the applicant-tenant for arrears of rent and eviction. Prior to the filing of the suit a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the applicant, which, according to the finding of the court below, has been duly served. The suit was filed on the ground that the rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 3,500/- per month, which was more than Rs. 2,000/- and, therefore, the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and on the termination of tenancy the tenant is liable to evict the property in dispute. Sri Sunil Kumar Garg, landlord, was also cross-examined.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that in the statement Sunil Kumar Garg has stated that he intended to increase the rent from Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 2,000/- which has not been accepted by the defendant. This admission in the cross-examination dated 27.2.2008 establishes that the rent of the premises was Rs. 1,200/- and not Rs. 3,500/-. He further submitted that in the plaint there was no reference of any rent deed/agreement and, therefore, such agreement cannot be relied upon. He submitted that the admission is the best evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He further submitted that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been proved. Mere service of notice does not amount to proving of the notice.