N.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and order dated 6.4.1993 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge/Small Causes Judge, Lucknow, thereby decreeing the Suit No. 9 of 1986, Sarad Thadant v. Punjab National Bank, for arrears of rent and ejectment.
(2.) Plaintiff/opposite parties filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment with respect to the premises in question situated at the first floor of Thadani Mansion, Hazratganj, Lucknow, on the ground that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were not applicable to the premises in suit as the premises in suit was constructed on the open space after entering into an agreement dated 26.5.1977, between the predecessor in title of the plaintiff and the Hindustan Commercial Bank predecessor of the defendant. The premises was let out on monthly rent of Rs. 7,150 (Rs. 4,000 as rent for fitting and fixture in strong room Rs. 2,950 and Rs. 200 for up keep of passage). It was alleged that the defendant Bank had failed to pay rent with effect from 1.8.1985. The plaintiff served a registered notice dated 15th October, 1985 and demanded the rent. The tenancy of the defendant was also determined on the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. Plaintiff alleged that the rent from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1985 at the rate of Rs. 7,150 and mesne profits from 12.12.1985 to 13.1.1986 at the rate of Rs. 500 per day were due on the date of the filing of the suit. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the reasonable market rate often in the locality, was not less than Rs. 7 per sq. ft. and the total covered area in the tenancy of the defendant was about 3,500 sq. ft.
(3.) Defendant/ revisionist contested the suit by filing written statement and pleaded that the building in question was covered by the provisions of the Act. It was also contended that Bank had never defaulted in payment of rent and the rent remitted through money orders and cheques were refused by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied that the rate of rent in the locality was Rs. 7 per sq. ft. The defendant also disputed the agreement dated 26.5.1977 on the ground that it was inadmissible being unregistered and not duly stamped. The defendant moved an application under Section 20 (4) of the Act claiming exemption from decree of eviction. The suit was decreed on 6.4.1993. It is against this judgment and decree this revision has been filed.;