RAKESH KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Some Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant-tenants/petitioners and Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent no.3 is the owner and landlady of a shop bearing Municipal No.185/1, Railway Road, Dibai, Pargana and Tehsil Dibai, District Bulandshahr, which she had purchased by a registered sale-deed dated 5.12.1991. She built three shops in it. First assessment of the disputed property was made in the year 1993. By a registered sale-deed dated 25.2.1997, the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3 had sold one shop to one Sri Suresh Chand Gupta, son of Sri Nand Kishore Gupta. She had let out the second shop to Sri Yogendra. The third shop was let out by her to the defendant-tenant/petitioners nos.1 and 2.

(3.) According to the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3, the defendant-tenants/petitioners defaulted in payment of rent from 01.01.2010. Therefore, the plaintiff-landlady/respondent no.3 issued a notice dated 31.3.2010 to the defendant-tenants/petitioners, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1882') whereby she determined the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent. The defendants-tenants/petitioners did not comply with notice. Therefore, she filed S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Devi v. Rakesh Kumar and others) in the court of Judge Small Cause, Bulandshahr. In the aforesaid suit five issues were framed as under: "...Vernacular Text Omitted..."