- (1.) THIS revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been field by the defendant tenant against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-1999 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in S. C. C. suit No. 33 of 1992 decreeing the suit of respondent for ejectment and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month.
(2.) THE respondent landlord filed S. C. C. suit No. 33 of 1992 against the applicant tenant, for his ejectment from the shop in suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1-11-1989 till the date of suit at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month and for pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner landlord of premises in question and defendant was its tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 1,500/- The defendant was carrying on furnitue shop in the premises in question. The shop in question was cnstructed in the year 1986 after demolition of old one and therefore the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to it. The defendant fell in arrears of rent since 1-11-1989 and the plaintiff landlord accordingly terminated his tenncy by serving a registered notice dated 22-3-1992 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The above notice was returned un-served. Therefore he again sent another notice dated 13-4-1992, which was served on the defendant tenant by refusal. The tenancy of the defendant accordingly stood terminated with effect from 13-10-1992. The defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises in question; hence the suit. The defendant tenant contested the above suit on the ground that rate of rent was only Rs. 600/- per month. The shop in question was not reconstructed in the year 1986, but it was a part of old building. The provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises in question. No notice was served on him and he never refused to take any notice. The defendant tenant had gone to Ajmer Sharif on 11-4-1992 and returned from there on 16-4-1992. He was not at his residence on 13-4-1992 and the endorsement of the Postman regarding refusal was forged one. He further contended that he had paid rent of the pemises in question till December, 1992.
(3.) THE learned Judge Small Causes Court framed necessary issues arising out of above pleadings of the parties and on consideration of the evidence of the parties held that the shop in question was reconstructed in the year 1986 after getting sanction plan passed from the Nagar Palika concerned and its first assessment was made with effect from 1991-92 and therefore provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to it. THE plaintiff landlord proved by examining Postman concerned that the defendant tenant refused to take notice and defendant could not establish that he was in Ajmer Sharif from 11-4-1992 to 16-4-1992. He further held that rate of rent of the premises in question was only Rs. 600/- per month and the defendant tenant had paid rent upto December, 1992. He further held that the tenancy was terminated through simple notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and the tenant was not entitled to any protection under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. With the above findings the trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question and for pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree the tenant has preferred this revision.;