- (1.) The petitioner/tenant has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, in challenging the judgement and decree dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Chitrakoot decreeing the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the respondent no.3/landlord as well as the judgement dated 21.11.2014, whereby the revision challenging the judgement of the Judge Small Causes, has also been dismissed.
(2.) The respondent/landlord had instituted SCC suit no. 2 of 2011 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The categorical case in the suit was that the rent of the demised premises was Rs.500/- per month and the petitioner is in default in payment of rent since July 2007. The arrears of rent were not paid despite due service of notice dated 3.1.2011. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, disputing the rate of rent. His case was that the rent initially was Rs.10/- per month which lateron was enhanced to Rs.15/- and thereafter to Rs.20/- per month. It was stated that the rent from 1.7.2007 until 1.1.2011 i.e., for period of 53 months amounting to Rs.860/- was sent to the landlord by money order on 2.2.2011 and as such there is no default in the payment of rent.
(3.) The Judge Small Causes, after considering the evidence on record held that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month and the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent for a period of more than four months. It is further held that the same was not paid to the landlord despite notice of demand nor the entire amount was deposited in the suit at the first date of hearing. With these findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment by judgement and decree dated 28.2.2013; the revisional court has affirmed the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes.;