ANIL BADOLA Vs. YOGENDRA KUMAR
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-82
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 06,2013

Anil Badola Appellant
VERSUS
YOGENDRA KUMAR Respondents

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 occupation.
(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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.