D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 19.10.1983 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow allowing the revision preferred by opposite party.
(2.) The dispute relates to House No. 501/61 situated in Umrao Bahadur Road, Hasanganj, and Lucknow. The opposite party Smt. Sachi Kumari Misra is admittedly the landlady. The tenant was Dr. K.C. Ojha. Dr. Ojha was in occupation of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/ - while the first floor was occupied by Dr. A.N. Dwivedi on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/ -. The first floor of the house was got vacated by the landlady through an application made Under Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlady being old wanted the ground floor and it is alleged that before the Prescribed Authority the alternative accommodation was offered by the landlady to Dr. K.C. Ojha. Dr. K.C. Ojha in pursuance of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority entered into possession over the first floor from the ground floor and the ground floor was occupied by the landlady on 25th March, 1977. It may be mentioned that quantum of rent was not determined by the Prescribed Authority. However, Dr. Ojha tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per month which was obviously a ridiculous amount and was refused by the landlady. After a lapse of few months, the landlady served a notice for arrears of rent and ejectment and thereafter she filed a suit in the court of Judge, Small Causes. The learned Judge Small Causes held that the Defendant was not liable to pay Rs. 175/ - per month as rent as the Prescribed Authority by allotment order bad directed the parties to get the standard rent fixed. The parties did not get the standard rent fixed, hence the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim rent @ of Rs. 175/ - per month. He further held that the Defendant cannot be held as defaulter of rent. On these findings he dismissed the suit. The Respondent landlady went up in the revision and the said revision has been allowed. This is how this petition is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the averments and cross averments made by the contesting parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that since no standard rent was fixed, therefore, there was no agreed rent and the suit for ejectment could not be decreed on the ground that Petitioner had defaulted in paying the arrears of rent. I am not impressed by this argument. The standard rent has been defined in Sec. 3(k) of the Act which reads as under: 3(k) "standard rent", subject to the provisions of Ss. 6, 8 and 10 means (i) in the case of a building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of this Act (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable there for at such commencement as well as annual rent which in this Act has the same meaning as in Sec. 2(f) of the old Act reproduced in the Schedule the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, which ever, is greater ; where there is no agreed rent, but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per cent thereon ; where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent, the rent as determined Under Sec. 9 ; (ii) in any other case, the assessed letting value, for the time being in force, and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined Under Sec. 9". It has been admitted that there was a fixed assessment of the house. It is also admitted that the assessed rent had also not been paid by Dr. Ojha. It may be mentioned that during the trial Dr. Ojha died and his heirs stepped into the shoes. Sec. 3(f) defines assessment as under: (f) " assessment ", in relation to a building means the assessment or proportionate assessment, as the case may be, of the letting value thereof by the local authority having jurisdiction and " assessed " shall be construed accordingly;