H.N.TIHARI, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, has been filed by the defendant, who was aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 2.8.1986 passed by Sri Ram Kishore, VI-Additional District Judge, Hardoi in S.C.C. No. 4 of 1984, Brij Kishore Tandon v. Asghar Ali Khan, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-revisionist.
(2.) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that according to the plaint case the shop in dispute situate in Bazar Purani Ghee Mandi Batganj Nagar Palika, Hardoi, constructed in May, 1975, admittedly, belonged to late Sri Sitaram Tandon and later on plaintiff became landlord and owner thereof. The property in dispute has been described in para-1 of plaint. According to the plaintiff's case the defendant, in January, 1976 took the said shop on lease for the first time on monthly rental of Rs. 175/- and, as per terms the tenancy ran as per English calandar month from the first day of each month to the last day thereof. According to the plaintiff's case after having been taken of these shops on lease the defendant started Kirana business therein with the name as Janta Kirana Store. The defendant fell in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.1983 and then became in arrears for the period upto December 31, 1983. The plaintiff on 15.1.1984 issued a registered notice demanding the arrears of rent as well as terminating the tenancy of the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which notice was served on defendant, as per plaint allegations on 27.1.1984. The defendant has replied that notice on 25.2.1984 which reply was served on the plaintiff on 28.2.1984. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent not vacated the shops in dispute, instead according to the plaint case, defendant started denying his capacity as tenant and so the plaintiff has further taken a plea that the defendant was liable to be evicted on that ground apart from being in arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff's case as the defendant did not comply with the notice, so the need for the suit has arisen. The plaintiff has claimed, in the suit, that a decree for ejectment against the defendant- revisionist from the shops in dispute, more specifically described in paras 1 and 27 of the plaint, be passed. He further claimed in his favour and against the defendant-revisionist a decree for the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,732/- for the period from 1st May, 1983 to 26th February, 1984. He also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 530.50 for the period from 27.2.1984 to 28.5.1984. He has also claimed for water tax as well as he made claim for interest. The reliefs claimed are mentioned in the paragraph 27 of the plaint. The defendant vide his written statement dated 26.11.1984 denied the plaint case. He denied his relationship or status as a tenant. According to the defendant case the defendant was not the tenant of the shop in dispute nor was a partner of Janta Kirana Stores. The alleged partnership known as Janta Kirana Store did run business the rein, and so he asserted that notice should have been sent to the said Janta Kirana Store or to its partners. The defendant denied his relationship or concern with the said Janta Kirana Store or with the business carried on the rein. The defendant's case has been maliciously filed against him. He asserted that the suit should have been filed against that Janta Kirana Store or its partners. The defendant further asserted that the notice which has been issued to the defendant ought to have been given to the partners of the Janta Kirana Store and not to him. The trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the shop in dispute was constructed in 1975, if so, its effect? 2. Whether in the year 1976 the shop in dispute was letout by the father of the plaintiff to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 175/- as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint. 3. Whether the tenant has carried on the business in the name of Janta Kirana Store in the shop in dispute? 4. Whether the defendant has not paid the rent w.e.f. 1.5.1983, as alleged till 15.1.1984 and has been in arrears of a sum of Rs. 1,487.50 as arrears of rent? 5. Whether the defendants liable to pay Rs. 1,470/- as arrears of water tax, which have been realised by Nagar Palika from the plaintiff? 6. Whether the notice served on the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid? 7. Whether the defendant has got no concern with Janta Kirana Store? The parties to the case laid oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial Court on the basis of facts and on consideration of the evidence on record, held the shop in dispute to have been constructed in the year 1975, as alleged by the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that the notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not valid. It further held that notice for termination of tenancy legal and valid. As regards issues Nos. 2, 3 and 7, the learned trial Court, after consideration of entire evidence on record held that shop in dispute was let out by the father of the plaintiff in the year 1976 on monthly rental of Rs. 175/- to the defendant. The trial Court held that the defendant has got every concern with the business known as Janta Kirana Store and business known as Janta Kirana Store was started by defendant and none else. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for arrears of rent as well as for damages and water tax as claimed by the plaintiff.
(3.) WITH these findings, the trial Court i.e. VI Additional District Judge, Hardoi, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 2.8.1986. The defendant was granted two months' time to vacate the accommodation in dispute. The trial Court further ordered that the pendente lite and further damages shall also be realizable from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month till the date of actual delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid decree of the learned trial Court, the defendant has come up in revision before this court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.;