ANIL BADOLA Vs. YOGENDRA KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the revisionist and
Sri Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) THIS civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14 -1 -2013 passed by Judge SCC/Addl. District Judge Kotdwar,
Garhwal in SCC Suit NO. 7 of 2007, Yogendra Kumar and others vs. Anil
Badola, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for recovery of
Rs. 16,800/ - and eviction of the defendant. The plaintiff were also held
entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2400/ - per month damages for use of
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a house 16x70feet, east facing situated at Najibabad -Kotdwar National Highway, which is ground
floor along with two rooms situated on the roof of first floor on the
roofs of the shop, was let out to defendant @ 2400/ - per month rent. The
house was constructed in the year 1992 and the assessment of house was
done for the first time on 1.4.1996 therefore U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is
not applicable to it. The defendant had paid the rent of the shop upto
February 2007 but he has not paid the taxes despite demand. The defendant
without the permission of plaintiff made certain material alterations in
the disputed shop and he is adamant to do some other alterations in shop.
The plaintiffs do not want to continue the tenancy of the defendant and
issued notice U/S 106 T.P.Act against the defendant and determined his
tenancy with a notice of 30 days. The plaintiffs also sent notice for
recovery of arrears of rent on 26.3.2007 but the defendant gave evasive
reply. Despite notice neither the defendant paid the arrear of rent and
taxes nor handed over possession of the shop. Hence the suit was filed.
The defendant contested the suit by filing his W.S. and admitted his tenancy. He alleged that the alterations done in the shop
were done with the consent of plaintiff. It was further alleged that the
earlier agreement dated 26 -3 -2007 was waived as the plaintiff executed
another agreement dated 4.5.2007 after taking two Lakhs rupees from the
defendant. In reply the plaintiff denied the execution of the agreement
dated 4.5.2007, nor he obtained Rs. two lakhs from the defendant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.