- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and Order dated 26.7.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 111 of 2000 whereby the order dated 14.9.2000 passed by the 1st Addl. J.S.C.C. Kanpur Nagar dismissing the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the landlord respondent No. 2, was set aside and the said suit stood decreed in favour of the landlord. The background facts, in a nutshell, essentially, are as follows: Admittedly, the plaintiff respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the premises in dispute. The defendant petitioner is the tenant of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month including the electricity charges. According to the landlord the rate of rent was Rs. 450/- per month and, over and above that amount, Rs. 50/- was payable towards electricity charges. It was further submitted that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent, hence, a notice dated 30.12, 1997, under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was sent to the petitioner terminating his tenancy and claiming arrears of rent from 1.8.1997 to 31.12.1997. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 1.1.1998 and was replied to by him on 2.1.1998, and on 15.1.1998 two separate money orders were sent by the petitioner for payment of arrears of rent which was refused by the landlord respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner deposited the arrears of rent in the Court under section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the 'Act').
(2.) Subsequently, a Suit No. 43 of 1998, for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the petitioner stating that he is the owner and landlord of the disputed premises and the defendant petitioner is the tenant of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month including the electricity charges of Rs. 50/-. According to the landlord, the rate of rent was Rs. 450/- per month and over and above amount of Rs. 50/- was payable towards electricity charges. Further plea taken in the plaint by the landlord was that since the premises in dispute is newly constructed, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the 'Act') is not applicable in the present case. The respondent No. 2 contested the said suit by filing his written statement.
(3.) The Trial Court, after considering the materials available on the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2000. It was, inter alia, held that the premises is covered under the Act.;