RAVINDRA ANAND Vs. DHARAM VEER MEHTA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Dharam Veer Mehta
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Tenant has preferred present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts / 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 2004 filed by the landlord respondent herein was decreed directing the tenant revisionist herein to vacate and hand over actual physical possession to the landlord respondent herein within 30 days and to pay mesne profit @ Rs.3,500/- p.m. from 01.03.2004 till possession is handed over to the landlord.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord respondent herein filed S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 2004 in the Court of Judge Small Cause Courts Dehradun, inter alia, contending therein that defendant is a tenant in the disputed premises @ Rs.3,500/- p.m.; defendant has deposited rent @ Rs. 3,500/- in the Bank account of the plaintiff till February, 2004 and, thereafter, neither deposited the rent nor paid rent; since rate of rent of the disputed property is Rs.3,500/-, therefore, provision of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 13 of 1972') are not applicable; defendant vide notice dated 28.06.2004 was asked to pay arrears of rent; was informed that tenancy would stand terminated on the expiry of thirty days after service of notice and was further asked to hand over vacant physical possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice.
(3.) Defendant revisionist herein filed his written statement, inter alia, stating therein that rate of rent of building was agreed Rs.1,900/- p.m. and it was also agreed that Rs.1,600/- p.m. would be paid for amenities and furniture, over and above, the monthly rent.
Therefore, Rs.1,600/- over and above Rs.1,900/- p.m. cannot be said to be part of rent. Provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. Notice issued by the plaintiff dated 28.06.2004 is not a valid and legal notice, therefore, tenancy of the defendant does not stand terminated and suit on the basis of illegal notice is not maintainable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.