Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE above revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Court Act by the tenant of the disputed shop against the Judgment and decree dated 9.2.2004 delivered in SCC Suit No. 7 of 2001 whereby the Court below has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,375/ - towards arrear of rent and for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in dispute. In addition, pendentelite and mense profit from the date of the institution of the suit have been granted @ 1125/ - per month till the actual delivery of possession.
(2.) SCC Suit No. 7 of 2001 was instituted by Madhav Prasad Charitable Trust through his chief trustee and Shri Kailash Chandra Mittal S/o Madhav Prasad against the defendant, the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') on the allegations that the property in dispute is a trust property and Kailash Chandra Mittal, Plaintiff No. 2 is its managing trustee. The shop in dispute was let out in the month of February 1985 to the tenant and it is part of the said charitable trust. The trust is a public charitable trust and it is utilizing the rent for the charitable purposes and hence the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. A rent note dated 22.1.1985 was executed by the tenant wherein it was agreed upon that there will be enhancement of 10% of rent after every three years. The rent note was for a period of 11 months and as per the terms of the rent note the rent came to be Rs. 1125/ - per month in the month of March 2001. The tenant is in arrears of rent since March 1998. A notice dated 23.4.2001 determining the tenancy was given which was replied on 25.5.2001 by the tenant on incorrect pleas. A sum of Rs. 1500/ - was tendered through money order which was refused as it was a very small amount in comparison to the rent due. The suit was contested on a number of pleas. The tenant denied that the property in dispute is a trust property. The execution of the agreement dated 22.1.1985 was denied and it was stated that the plaintiff No. 2 had obtained signatures on blank papers and if he has prepared some agreement thereon, it is of no consequence. The shop in dispute was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - in February 1985. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was given by him by way of security amount and that the provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable.
(3.) THE parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court struck five points for determination as mentioned in the judgment. It was held that the shop in dispute is a part of trust property and the provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 are therefore not applicable that the rent note dated 22.1.1985 was executed by the tenant and the said document is admissible in evidence being for a period of 11 months, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmad, 1997 (2) CCC 122, the tenant is defaulter in the payment of rent since April 1998 and that the tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;