- (1.) THESE two revisions arise out of a judgment and decree dated 13.4.1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow, whereby S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 1977 originally filed by Jang Bahadur Srivastava, the plaintiff, against the defendant Chandra Lal Verma, for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment from the premises in suit, along with pendentilite and future damages for use and occupation of the premises, was partly decreed only to the payment of arrears of rent along with rent for pendentilite period.
(2.) THE S.C.C. Suit was filed by the revisionists -plaintiffs of C.R No. 61 of 1982 on the ground that he was the owner and land lord of the premises in suit, described in detail in para -1 of the plaint; that the defendant Chandra Lal Verma, since deceased, was a tenant of the accommodation on the first floor described in detail in para 2 of the plaint, with a monthly rent of Rs.225/ - plus statutory taxes and he was in arrears of rent with effect from 20.7.76 to 16.4.77 amounting to Rs.2000/ - and statutory water tax for April, 1972 to March, 1977 amounting to Rs.248/ -; that he was also liable to pay Rs.1075/ - as damages for occupation use of first floor flat from 17.4.77 to 19.5.77 at the rate of Rs.25/ - per day; that he also illegally occupied two rooms on the top floor and a motor garage on the ground floor with effect from 5.7.76 and was in arrears for the same to the plaintiff amounting to Rs.3566/ - at the rate of Rs.370/ - per month in respect of which a separate suite was filed by the plaintiff; that a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant aforesaid was sent to him on 14.3.77 which was served on 17.3.77 and his tenancy was terminated thereby after expiry of twenty days on receipt of the notice; that he had not utilized Rs.1800/ - from 1972 to 1978 at the rate of two months' rent per year allowed to be deducted from the rent as per his request in respect of white -wash, repair etc. of the portion under his tenancy, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover that amount also. It has also been averred that since in spite of service of the notice, the defendant had neither paid the arrears of rent and damages claimed nor vacated the premises in suit, the suit for the relief mentioned above has been filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendant filed his written statement taking several grounds therein including that the entire rent had been paid, nothing was due against him; that the notice was invalid; the entire premises in suit were in his tenancy; no illegal possession over any other portion much less on top floor and the garage was taken by him forcibly; the rent included the water taxes separately, that no rent was due against him, much less for the period in suit, and he had committed no default as they were already in deposit under section 30 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and sent to the plaintiff through money order, thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The following issues were framed by the S.C.C. Court: - 1.Whether the defendant was tenant of the portion only as shown in para 2 of the plaint? 2.Whether the defendant is the tenant of the entire premises as alleged in W.S.? If so its effect ? 3.Whether the defendant is liable to pay water tax separately as claimed or water tax was included in the rent as pleaded in the W.S. ? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1800/ - which was allowed for repairs ? 5.Whether the notice is in suit was not legal ? 6.Whether the defendant was in arrears of rent ? If so of what amount or whether he is defaulter. 7.To what amount or to what relief is the plaintiff entitled?;