RAJVEER SINGH Vs. LAXMI DEVI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.) THIS revision, filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2011, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises (detailed in the plaint) situated near Mastram Gali, Bhopatwala, Haridwar. The trial court has further decreed the suit for arrears of rent amounting Rs. 1,96,482/ - and also for mesne profits @ Rs. 633.33 per day.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and the intervener, and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Laxmi Devi filed Small Cause Suit No. 13 of 2011, against the defendant Rajveer Singh (present revisionist) for eviction from the premises in suit situated near Mastram Gali, Bhopatwala, Haridwar, with the pleadings that the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the premises in question, which were given on rent to the defendant Rajveer Singh on 01.06.2010. According to the plaintiff, the rate of rent was Rs. 18,363.63/ - per month. It is further pleaded in the plaint that out of Rs. 2,02,200/ - rent payable for 11 months, for which, the premises were taken on rent by the defendant, only Rs. 60,000/ - was paid, and the defendant committed default in making payment of rest of the sum. It is further pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by getting served notices issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by the plaintiff, and the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant, and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit before the trial court, and filed his written statement. The defendant admitted that he was tenant of the premises, but disputed the rate of rent. According to the defendant, rate of rent was Rs. 6000/ - per month only. It is further pleaded by the defendant that in fact the owner of the property in suit was not plaintiff (Luxmi Devi) but one Raghuviri Devi.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.