- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition. Respondent No. 2 is the tenant. Landlord filed suit for eviction against tenant before JSCC/civil Judge (S. D.), Muzaffar Nagar in the form of SCC Suit No. 28 of 1993 JSCC through judgment and decree dated 3-2-1996, decreed the suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The trial Court held that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1984 hence Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) by virtue of its Section 20 (2) was not applicable as suit had been filed before expiry of ten years from date of construction i. e. in the year 1993. The trial Court further held that the rate of rent was Rs. 500 per month in addition to water tax and house tax, as alleged by the landlord and not Rs. 300 per month inclusive of all taxes, as alleged by the tenant. The tenant respondent No. 2 filed a revision against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court under Section 25 PSCC Act, which was numbered as SCC Revision No. 11 of 1996. Revisional Court, X Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 4-2-1997, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by JSCC and dismissed the suit with cost hence this writ petition by landlord.
(2.) UNDER point No. 1, Revisional Court held on the basis of extract of assessment register filed by the landlord bearing paper No. 37 Ga that the shop was constructed in the year 1979 and not in 1984. Copy of the said extract is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said extract is of the quinquennial period from 1979 to 1984. In column No. 12 thereof it is mentioned that through order dated 1-10-1983/31-12-1983, tax of Rs. 1250 per year was fixed with effect from 1-4-1984. In my opinion, lower Revisional Court was utterly wrong to infer from the said document that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1979. In the said order, it was clearly mentioned that the tax was assessed with effect from 1-4-1984; hence the said date would have to be taken to be the date of construction. In every municipality, house tax assessments are made/revised on quinquennial basis. Any building constructed during any such period is also recorded in the said registers giving the date on which construction is taken to be completed and with effect from which house tax is assessed. The second point framed by the Revisional Court was regarding validity of notice of demand. It is correct that the notice of demand was not in accordance with Section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as in the notice default shown was only of three months (November, December 1992 and January 1993) and through the said notice dated 9-2-1993, rent for the said period of three months was demanded. Under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act, rent must be due for at least four months. However, as building had been constructed less that ten years before filing of the suit hence U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and it was not at all necessary to prove existence of any ground of ejectment as mentioned under Section 20 (2) of the Act. The suit for eviction was liable to be decreed only on the ground of termination of tenancy. The Revisional Court further held that the notice was invalid regarding termination of tenancy also as in the notice, it had not been mentioned that in case tenant defaulted in payment of arrears of rent after one month from receipt of notice only then suit for eviction would be filed.
(3.) IN my opinion, this finding is also erroneous in law. Notice of termination of tenancy is distinct from notice of demand of rent under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. It is another matter that both may be combined and through the same notice demand of rent may be made and tenancy may also be terminated. Even if there is only one notice, still consists of the aforesaid two parts and both are independent of each other. IN a given case part of the notice terminating the tenancy may be valid and part of notice demanding rent may be invalid and vice-versa. Under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act, the only thing required is that "the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and as failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of notice of demand". By virtue of aforesaid sub-section the only thing required is that there should be a default and demand. It is not necessary that it must also be mentioned in the notice that on the failure of the tenant suit for eviction would be filed. In any case, in the instant case U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable hence notice demanding rent was superfluous. Even in the absence of any demand of rent in the notice, suit could be decreed only on the basis of notice of termination of tenancy.;