ANITA SHARMA Vs. LAIQUE AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/applicant in the Revision filed a suit being SCC Suit No. 20 of 2011 for the eviction of the defendant/respondent and for arrears of rent. When this suit was dismissed saying that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the shop in question, the instant Revision was filed. The case of the plaintiff/applicant was that after she had let out the shops which were on the ground flour below the Kings Hotel and Bina Prakash Nurshing Home, Civil Lines, Bijnor, the boundaries of which were : East: remaining accommodation of the landlord; West: Sadak Sarkari Civil Lines Bijnor; North: another shop of the plaintiff and South-Rasta, the premises of the three shops contiguous to each other were rented to the defendant after the partition walls between them were removed. She had stated that the rent which the defendant was paying was Rs. 2250.00 apart from the municipal taxes. It was further alleged in the plaint that since the rent payable was Rs. 2250.00, the building was exempted from the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as per Sec. 2(g) of the Act.

(2.) Further case of the plaintiff was that when notice was served upon the tenant terminating his tenancy the suit had to be decreed and the defendant had to be evicted. A further direction had to be issued to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the tenant countering the allegations made in the plaint and it was clearly stated that there were three shops of the plaintiff which the defendant had taken adjoining to each other and that too over a certain span of time. Initially he had taken shop no. 33/5 and, thereafter, he had taken shop no. 33/2 on rent and subsequently the third shop was also taken by him. The defendant, therefore, took up a case that there were three shops which were let out to the defendant, the rent of which individually on the date when the suit was filed was Rs. 750.00 each. This totalled to Rs. 2250.00 and, therefore, it could not be said that tenancy was of a single composite building, of which the rent was Rs. 2250.00 per month. The defendant, therefore, had stated that the shops in question were definitely covered by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Further case taken by the defendant was that there was no default on his part and, therefore, the suit had to be dismissed. Upon exchange of pleadings, issues were struck which are being reproduced here as under:-