- (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate assisted by Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate for respondents.
(2.) THIS civil revision has arisen from the judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed by Small Cause Court, Hathras in SCC Suit No. 09 of 1997. The plaintiff-respondent instituted small cause suit for a decree of ejectment against defendants-revisionists and recovery of Rs. 30,590/- (arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation) alongwith pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 1092.50 per month. The dispute relates to a shop at ground floor in the building in dispute situated at Hospital Road/Tehsil Road, Sikandra Rao, District Aligarh. The plaintiff, Ram Murti Devi pleaded that monthly rent of shop was Rs. 950/- besides municipal taxes at the rate of 15% per month. The defendants-tenants committed default by not paying rent from 01.01.1995 despite repeated request and demand and also let out/sub let a portion of shop in question without consent of plaintiff-landlord to one Mohd. Ajaz son of Mohd. Zafar and realising Rs. 50/- per day as rent from him and, therefore, is guilty of sub-letting also. In substance the ejectment of tenant sought by plaintiff on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting, i.e., the grounds available under Section 20(2)(a) and (e) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972").
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit alleging that rate of rent is Rs. 710/- per month excluding house tax and water tax, which they (tenants) are regularly depositing with concerned department and neither there is any default in payment of rent nor the shop has been sub-let to anyone. The court below formulated five issues and for the purpose of present revision the issues No. 2, 3 and 4 are relevant, hence reproduced as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... "2. Whether rent for the shop in question is Rs. 950/- per mensem as claimed by plaintiff or Rs. 710/- per mensem as claimed by defendants and whether defendants have defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. If so, its effect? 3. Whether defendant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4), UP Act 13 of 1972? 4. Whether defendants have kept Shri Mohammed Ezaz as a sub-tenant at the shop in question for Rs. 50 per day or for consideration of some other amount. If so, its effect?" (English translation by the Court) ;