PARMINDER SINGH Vs. SAVITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants appeal challenging the order of his ejectment with a further relief of possession granted to the plaintiff- respondent in respect of the demised shop. The plaintiff-respondent has also been held entitled to arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.1997 upto 31.12.1999 @ Rs. 500/- p.m. alongwith interest @ 12 percent p.a. It has further been held that the plaintiff-appellant is also entitled to recover damages @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. from the date of termination of tenancy till the delivery of possession. The District Judge while passing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent has reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7.6.2001 holding that there was valid notice issued to the tenant-appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity 'the Act') terminating the tenancy of the tenant-appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent sought a decree for possession by ejectment of the tenant-appellant from the demised shop and recovery of arrears of rent alleging the rate of rent of Rs. 500/-. The arrears of rent has been claimed from 1.7.1997 to 31.12.1999. It is claimed that a notice under Section 106 of the Act was issued on 3.1.2000 and the tenant-appellant has failed to vacate the demised premises. The stand of the tenant-appellant is that no valid notice was issued and the rent has been deposited upto November, 1999. It is claimed that plaintiff-respondent never issued any receipt acknowledging payment of rent and that she alongwith her son threatened the tenant-appellant of forcible dispossession. It was claimed that no notice of termination of tenancy has been issued and if any such notice has been issued (the same) is not valid in the eyes of law.

(3.) ON the other issue regarding arrears of rent, the trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove the non-payment of rent or her entitlement to claim damages @ Rs. 2000/- p.m.