SANDHYA Vs. ANKIT CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This S.C.C. Revision has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 27.3.2018 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Ghaziabad, in S.C.C. Suit No. 59 of 2014 whereby the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/respondents for arrears of rent and ejectment has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents no. 1 and 2 had inducted the defendant no. 1 i.e. respondent no. 3 (in the Revision) as a tenant of the shop in question for a period starting from 1.6.2012 and ending on 30.4.2013 at the rate of Rs. 31,000.00 per month. On 30.4.2013, the plaintiffs (respondents no. 1 and 2 here) served a notice of eviction on the defendant no. 1. However, that notice was not acted upon and a compromise was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 whereby the tenancy was extended for the next 11 months at the rate of Rs. 36,500.00 per month on an understanding that the shop would be vacated by 31.3.2014. On 23.6.2014, the plaintiffs (respondents no. 1 and 2 here) served a notice on the defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 3) and the applicant in this Revision that they may vacate the premises in question as the tenancy had finally ended on 31.3.2014. By the notice, which was also addressed to the Applicant in the Revision in this case, who was the defendant no. 2, in the J.S.C.C. Suit, it had been stated that the defendant no. 2 had been running the shop on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and, therefore, was a sub-tenant of the defendant no. 1. Ultimately, the notice was to the effect that the tenant had to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiffs/landlords.

(3.) Since the vacant possession of the shop was not handed over to the respondents no. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), a suit was filed against the tenant and the sub tenant who were arrayed as defendants no. 1 and 2 respectively for the relief that the defendants were to be evicted and vacant possession had to be handed over to the plaintiffs. However, further relief was that the arrears of rent from April 2014 to July 2014 had to be paid at the rate of Rs. 36,500.00 per month, totalling Rs. 1,82,500.00 for the property in question. During the pendency of the suit, damages were to be paid at the rate of Rs. 60,000.00 per month.