S.K. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS revision, filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2015 passed by Judge Small Causes/First Additional District Judge, court No. 1, Bahraich, decreeing the SCC Suit No. 6 of 2009 (Wakf Masjid Mohalla Kazipura and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Mateen) for the relief of eviction from the shop and for damages @ Rs. 195/ - per month.
(2.) BRIEFLY , stated facts in short are that a Suit was filed by Mutawalli/President of the Wakf Board before the Judge Small Causes Court seeking eviction of the revisionist Mohd. Mateen from the shop in dispute alleging that shop was let out to revisionist @ Rs. 195/ - per month, apart from house tax and water tax, defendant has paid rent upto February, 2008 but did not pay any amount towards house and water tax. He has assured to raise the rent from Rs. 195/ - to Rs. 1200/ - per month. Increased number of devotee required additional space for offering 'Namaz'. Consequently, tenancy was terminated by giving notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on 20.11.2008 but neither he vacated the shop nor paid arrears of rent as well as house tax and water tax, hence, the Suit. A sum of Rs. 17080/ - was claimed as arrears and rent was claimed @ Rs. 1500/ - per month. Tenant filed a written statement denying the allegations and stated that he was let out the shop @ Rs. 195/ - per month which included the local tax, he is regularly paying the rent, notice is invalid, shop has small area covered by tin -shed which is the sole source of livelihood for his family. It was taken on rent from the then Mutwalli Sri Badrul Hasan on 21.12.1996 @ Rs. 195/ - per month. Rent note was also executed in respect thereof. He paid rent up to February, 2008. Landlord having refused to accept rent for March and April, 2008, he deposited the rent in the court in Misc. Case No. 123/70/2008 covering period up to October, 2009. Since disputed premises is tin -shed, no house and water tax can be charged. He never agreed to pay the rent @ Rs. 1200/ - per month. Masjid is quite big to accommodate added devotees and there are number of other Masjids in that area apart from one big mosque known as 'Jama Masjid', therefore, need set up is not genuine. In fact, Mutavalli wants to give the shop to his friends or relatives on premium. Competence of plaintiff No. 2 to file the Suit was also challenged. Trial court framed as many as seven issues which are being reproduced below:
(3.) TRIAL court came to conclusion that property being Wakf property, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. Defendant never agreed to pay the rent @ 1200/ - per month and the rent @ Rs. 195/ - per month included all taxes, notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act was validly given. Plaintiff No. 2 has right to institute a Suit and Wakf Board was not necessary party, tenancy was month to month and whether plaintiff needed the shop is not relevant for the determination of the controversy. Tenancy having been terminated, landlord was entitled to get the relief of eviction. With these findings, Suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.05.2015 which has been impugned in this revision.;