MUNNU YADAV Vs. RAM KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) Briefly admitted facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of House No.76/184, Sabji Mandi, Kanpur Nagar, which is bounded by east, west and south side by public lane and on the northern side by House No.76/183. An open portion of the said house measuring 9 feet x 9 feet with four pucca tanks (nad) for feeding of cattles and enclosed by boundary wall was let out by the landlord-respondent to the tenant-revisionist on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The tenant-revisionist defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, the landlord-respondent issued a notice dated 18.06.2016 by registered post, whereby he determined the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent from the tenant-revisionist. The notice was served and yet neither the rent was paid nor the tenanted portion was vacated by the tenant-revisionist. Therefore, the landlord-respondent filed SCC Suit No.67 of 2016 (Ram Kumar Yadav and another Vs. Munnu Yadav) which was decreed by the Additional District Judge/Judge Small Cause, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019. In the aforesaid SCC Suit, six issues were framed. The issue no.1 regarding landlord-tenant relationship was decided by the court below holding that the respondent is the landlord of the disputed accommodation of which the revisionist is the tenant. The issue no. 2 was framed on the point as to whether provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable? The averments made by the landlord that the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable was not specifically denied by the tenant-revisionist. Therefore, it was held that provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable. The issue No.3 was framed on the point of default in payment of rent. The court below held that the tenant-revisionist defaulted in payment of rent. The issue no.4 was framed as to whether the tenant-revisionist is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 ? The court below held that since arrears of rent was not paid by the tenant-revisionist on the first date of hearing, therefore, the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act is not available to the tenant-revisionist. The issue no.5 was framed as to whether the notice determining the tenancy was validly given. The court below recorded the finding that the tenancy was determined by a valid notice. The issue no.6 was framed as to grant of relief. On the basis of findings of fact recorded on issue nos. 1 to 5 the court below found that the SCC Suit deserves to be decreed.

(3.) Aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019, the tenant-revisionist has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1887).