SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small ause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit, a Small Cause Court, in S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 1997, between Ankur Agarwal and Rajiv Nath Agarwal, for eviction and arrears of rent.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.N. Agarwal for revisionist-tenant and Sri M.K. Gupta for opposite party-landlord. The suit was filed with the plaint-averments stating that Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal, the father of plaintiff Sri Ankur Agarwal, had let out a shop situated in Mohalla Habibulla Khan Janubi, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit to the defendant Rajiv Nath Agarwal on monthly rent of Rs. 625/-. The shop is a new construction and assessed for the first time in January, 1995 and thus the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 13 of 1972) are not applicable to the shop in dispute. The rent as well as the house-tax and water-tax, was not paid since July, 1995. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act demanding the arrears of rent, house-tax and water-tax as well as terminating the tenancy was given to vacate the shop after thirty days. The plaintiff claimed the eviction, arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation, house-tax and water-tax.
(3.) THE defendant-revisionist denied the plaint's allegations. It was stated in the written statement that the shop in dispute was taken on rent in 1975 and since thereafter the rent was paid regularly. The shop in dispute fell in the share of uncle of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was minor and that his mother Uma Agarwal purchased the property from his uncle as his guardian in the year 1989. The tenant started paying the rent to Uma Agarwal. In 1991, the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month and thereafter in 1996, it was increased to Rs. 625/- per month. The defendant is related to the plaintiff, and placing trust on the relationship, his mother took Rs. 15,000/- as advance rent vide receipt dated 23-4-1996, mentioning thereon that it was in lieu of the rent from 1-4- 1996 to 31-3-1998. The defendant-tenant stated that the shop was constructed prior to the year 1975 and is not a new construction and that in case any map was sanctioned by the Nagar Palika, the same cannot give any benefit to the plaintiff in establishing that shop in dispute is a new construction.;