- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this writ petition on 2.7.2012, 27.8.2012 and 12.9.2012- following orders were passed: 2.7.2012: Supplementary affidavit filed by learned Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Shri Rahul Saxena holding brief of Shri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent. Judgment reserved. On the suggestion of the Court, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner has agreed that in case writ petition is allowed then tenant-petitioner would willingly pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date on which this writ petition is allowed provided that Rent Control Act is directed to continue to apply on the accommodation in dispute. 27.8.2012: List for further hearing at the top of the list on 5.9.2012 alongwith Writ Petition No. 41110 of 2010. 12.9.2012: In this case the judgment had earlier been reserved, however, thereafter, the case was directed to be listed for further hearing as clarification on two points was required. Today, learned Counsel for both the parties have again been heard. However, both the learned Counsel require some time to give proper reply to the query of the Court. The query of the Court from the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is regarding inconsistent user. Both the Courts below decreed the suit on the ground of default as well as inconsistent user. However, in the entire writ petition not a single word has been said regarding inconsistent user. On the earlier occasion when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved i.e. on 2.7.2012 no arguments had been raised by learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner against the finding of inconsistent user. The learned Counsel for the landlord respondent is required to explain as to how drainage tax which according to para 11 of the plaint comes to Rs. 6264/- is required to be paid by the tenant. The trial Court in its judgment on page 56 of the paper book has found deficiency of Rs. 1144/-. If drainage tax is not liable to be paid by the tenant then instead of deficiency, the deposited amount would be in excess by about Rs. 5000/-. List for further hearing on 19.9.2012 in top five cases.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 246 of 2005 instituted by landlords respondents against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute initially on the ground of default. Thereafter, ground of inconsistent user was also added in the plaint through amendment application J.S.C.C. Kanpur Nagar through judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 decreed the suit on both the grounds and directed eviction and recovery of arrears of rent alongwith damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future. Against the said judgment and decree petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 117 of 2000, which was dismissed on 18.10.2011 by A.D.J. Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Copy of the plaint is Annexure-I to the writ petition. In Para-11 of the plaint following main amounts were stated to be payable by the tenant: 1. Rent from 1.1.2005 to 20.8.2005 @ Rs. 900/- per month = Rs. 6900/- 2. Water tax from 1.3.1991 to 20.8.2005@ 14% = Rs. 21924/- 3. Drainage tax from 1.3.1991 to 20.8.2005 @ 4% = Rs. 6264/-;