MOHAMMAD HANIF Vs. SURAJ PRASAD MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 16th December, 1986 decreeing the suit No. 16 of 1985 (Suraj Prasad v. Mohammad Hanif) has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court's Act. The opposite party is the owner of shop No. 17 situate at Hurgatganj, Sikandra Mau District Aligarh. The applicant, it is alleged, was a tenant of the said shop on monthly rent of Rs. 200/ - and his tenancy commenced from the first date of calendar month and ended on the last day of the same month. The applicant fell in arrears of rent with effect from 1.2.1982 to 1.12.1982, for which a notice of demand was given to him.

(2.) THE opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the applicant, recovery of arrears of rent with effect from 1.2.1982 to 30.4.1985 (Rs. 7,800/ -) but the rent which had become barred was not claimed and, as such, only an amount of Rs. 7,225/ - inclusive of the cost of notice was filed. The applicant contested the suit alleging that the opposite party had given wrong and invalid notice. It was further contended by the applicant that the rate of rent of the accommodation in suit is only Rs. 35/ -. But the opposite party is illegally claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ -. In fact the opposite party wanted to enhance the rent, which offer was spurned by the applicant. On the refusal of the opposite party to accept the rent money order sent by the applicant, but was refused, where after the applicant deposited rent under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It has also been alleged by the applicant that as the opposite party had refused to accept the rent, he had deposited the same. The allegation of the opposite party that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 35/ - to Rs. 150/ - and then to Rs. 200/ - was categorically denied by the applicant. However, it is, admitted between them. It has been contended by the applicant that the rent with effect from 1st May, 1985 to 31st July, 1986 has deposited in the court The applicant in view of his liability to pay house tax and other taxes has deposited the same with the Nagarpalika, Aligarh.

(3.) THE parties in support of their respective contentions adduced oral evidence and produced documents. In support of his case the opposite party has examined one Sri P.S. Mullick, Hand written Expert from Delhi besides producing himself as P.W. 2.