SUDESH TIKOO Vs. RAJ VANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's appeal against eviction decree passed by the District Judge, Udhampur with respect to a shop situated at Court Road, Udhampur. The respondent commenced the suit for eviction against the appellant herein on the solitary ground of default in payment of rent and the commission of three defaults as envisaged under the provisions of J & K Houses and Shops Control Act. The factual background as emerged from the record is, that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant in the year 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- as alleged by the plaintiff and @ Rs. 450/- per month as claimed by the defendant/appellant. It is claimed by the plaintiff/respondent that the appellant/defendant became defaulter in payment of rent with effect from 1-6- 1990. A notice dated 9-6-1992 was sent to him through registered post claiming arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,000/- for the period 1-6-1990 to 31-5- 1992. The said notice was served upon the defendant and despite service, neither the rent was paid nor deposited in accordance with law. Another notice dated 14-6-1993 was issued on 14-6-1993 demanding an amount of Rs. 18,000/- as arrears of rent with effect from 1-6-1990 to 31-6-1993. The said notice was refused by the defendant and the rent remained unpaid having not been deposited or tendered. On commission of three consecutive defaults in payment of rent during the period of 18 months, the present suit came to be filed on 21-12-1993. The plaintiff-respondent claimed rent w.e.f. 1-12-1990 to 30-11- 1993 in the suit.

(2.) THE appellant on being served, filed his written statement of defence denying his liability for arrears of rent and claimed that he has been paying the rent regularly sometimes to the plaintiff and sometimes to her attorney, Vijay Kumar. The appellant also denied receipt of notices said to be served upon him by the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. As against the claim of the plaintiff regarding rate of rent at Rs. 500/- PM, the defendant stated that the rent was fixed at Rs. 450/- per month. On pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues on 1-6-1994 :

(3.) THE trial Court after hearing the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide the impugned judgment by holding all the issues to be proved except Issue No. 4. The trial Court returned finding that service of only first notice dated 9-6-1992 stands proved whereas the service of second notice was not established.