RAVI WALIA Vs. NISCHINT KATOCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) RESPONDENT -plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant- defendant for possession of two shops with verandah and also for arrears of rent. The premises are situated in rural area and, hence, H.P. Urban Rent Control Act is not applicable. Before filing the suit a notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was served on the appellant. It was stated that the shops had been released to the appellant for a period of 11 months from 1.9.1999, by means of a writing, on monthly rent of Rs.1800/- and it was agreed that in case the premises were not vacated on the expiry of the aforesaid period, the rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month would be payable, which would be further increased by 10% every year. The defendant is alleged to have not vacated the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period and not paid the rent and also committed breach of some conditions of the lease.

(3.) TRIAL Court framed various issues based on the pleadings of the parties and tried the suit and ultimately decreed it. Decree for possession by way of ejectment was passed inn favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-defendant. Also, a decree for Rs.32,400/-, on account of arrears of rent from 1.12.2001 to 31.5.2003, was passed. Appellant-defendant went in appeal to the Court of District Judge. Affirming the findings and decree of the trial court, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.