- (1.) This is a defendant tenant's revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1976 whereby the suit for ejectment of the defendant tenant (applicant) from the premises in suit, for recovery of Rs. 4,792/- as rent and damages upto 29.2.1976 and for pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- per months w.e.f. 1.3.1976 to the date of delivery of possession of the premises in suit has been decreed. The facts for the purposes of disposal of the present revision may be noticed in brief. The plaintiff, who is opposite party herein, instituted the aforestated suit on the plea inter alia that the defendant tenant is in occupation of portion of house-new No. 51-A (old No. 47), Johnstonganj, Allahabad. The said building was constructed and completed on 1.4.1968. The defendant tenant took possession of the said building thereafter. The defendant tenant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- on the first day of every month of English Calendar. The defendant tenant having failed to pay the rent as and when it fell due, the plaintiff opposite party had to file another Civil Suit No. 126 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 63,200/-. Certain payments, after institution of the said suit, were made and after giving the adjustment of those payments, a sum of Rs. 6,650/- remained due till the date of filing of the suit giving rise to the present revision. The tenancy has been terminated by means of notice of demand and ejectment dated 3.1.1976. The said notice was duly served on the defendant. It was further stated that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question as the building in question is a 'new construction' and it has not completed years from the date of construction on or before filing of the suit.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant applicant on number of pleas, but the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties was admitted. The defendant tenant came out with a case that initially it took possession of the property in question on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- which was reduced to Rs. 2,000/- per month w.e.f. 10.8.1968 as it partly vacated the tenanted accommodation. Two rooms accommodation was further vacated in December, 1971. These two rooms were let out to post office on monthly rent of Rs. 246. The rent should have been adduced to Rs. 1,554/- per month from December, 1971, but the plaintiff is illegally demanding the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- instead. The validity of notice determining the tenancy was also challenged. It was further pleaded that the defendant tenant has invested a sum of Rs. 12,432/- in carrying out the repairs etc. and as such, the defendant is entitled to get adjustment of the said amount, besides the fact that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the building in question. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as nine, following issues were struck by the Trial Court: 1. Whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies to the disputed building, and if so, whether the defendant is liable to eviction on service simplicitor of a notice under section 106, T.P. Act? 2. Whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the building in question and is so, whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent? 3. Whether the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation is Rs. 1,850/- per month or Rs. 1,554/- per month? 4. Whether the defendant has been served with a notice under section 106, T.P. Act? If not, to what effect? 5. Whether the defendant has been served with a valid notice of demand? 6. Whether any amount of money by way of arrears of rent is due from the defendant? 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to claim the amount spent by him on carrying out repairs in the disputed building? 8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 9. Whether notice under Co-operative Societies Act has been given? If not, whether the present suit is not legally maintainable?
(3.) The Trial Court by the judgment and decree under revision has found that the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable; notice determining the tenancy is valid; rate of rent of disputed accommodation is Rs. 1,850/- per month; a sum of Rs. 4,792/- is due as rent and damages up to 29.2.1976; the defendant is not entitled to claim adjustment of any amount allegedly spent by it in carrying out the repairs in the disputed building and that no notice under section 117 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act was necessary to be given by the plaintiff to the Registrar Co-operative Societies and the suit is legally maintainable.;