RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PREM KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Om Prakash-I and Sri Arvind Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that father of the plaintiff-respondent had purchased Plot No.36, Block P-1, Rattu Purwa, Hamirpur Road, Kanpur, from the Kanpur Development Authority by a registered sale deed/free hold deed dated 29.11.1996. The plaintiff-constructed a house over it bearing Municipal No.133/P-1/36, Rattu Purwa, Hamirpur Road, Kanpur in the year 1999. In the ground floor portion of the said house there are certain shops. The defendant-revisionist was inducted as tenant of one shop (hereinafter referred to as "shop No.1"). According to the plaintiff-respondent the rent of the shop was Rs.2800/- per month. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-revisionist is a bad pay master and has also defaulted in payment of rent for more than four months after 01.11.2016 and has also illegally and unauthorisedly occupied another portion being shop No.5. Thus, by notice dated 29.03.2017, the plaintiff-respondent determined the tenancy and asked the defendant-revisionist to vacate the shop and give its possession and also pay the arrears of rent. The defendant-revisionist sent a reply dated 09.04.2017. Since the notice was not complied with by the defendant-revisionist, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed SCC Suit No.32 of 2017 (Prem Kumar Arora Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta) which has been decreed in respect of shop No.1 by the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2019, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with this judgment the defendant-revisionist has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the defendant-revisionist has deposited the entire amount of rent and expences etc. in terms of the plaint, on the first date of hearing, therefore, the defendant-revisionist was entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 read with Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. But the court below has completely ignored the fact of deposit and the effect of the aforesaid provisions and illegally passed the impugned order.