- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincials of Small Cause Courts Act has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2. 11,95 of Sri Subhash Chandra, IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad through which landlord's suit for eviction of the tenant from the disputed accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. was decreed.
(2.) THE brief facts are that Flat No. 306 on the second floor of Sector 37, Arun Bihar, Noida, district Ghaziabad is owned by the plaintiff-opposite party. It was let out to the defendant revisionist on a monthly rent of Rs. 3001 per month on 1. 3. 93. Tenancy used to be for 11 months, which was extended from time to time. THE first rent-note was executed on 28th February, 1993. It was averred that the tenant fell in arrears of rent because the cheque for Rs. 9,000 issued on 1. 3. 93 was dishonoured. It was also alleged that damage was caused by the tenant to the disputed accommodation. THE tenancy was, therefore, terminated by a notice dated 12. 7. 93, which was personally served on the tenant on 16. 7. 93. In spite of service of notice neither the rent was paid nor the tenanted portion was vacated by the tenant, hence the suit for eviction etc. was filed. It was averred that the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the premises because the building was completed in April, 1985. Suit was filed on 17. 8. 93. The tenant contested the suit on several grounds. She denied to have received notice of eviction. She pleaded that the building was governed by U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The validity of notice was challenged. The allegation regarding causing damage to the accommodation was denied. Payment of rent upto August, 1993 was alleged. It was further alleged that no receipt for payment of rent was issued. The rent was also deposited in the court below. The learned lower court concluded that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the premises and that the notice was served and that it was valid notice. On arrears also the finding was in favour of the landlord. With these findings the suit was decreed. It is, therefore, this revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard and with their consent this revision is being disposed of finally at admission stage. Only three points were urged from the side of the revisionist. The first was that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable to the premises. The second was that the notice was not served on the tenant-revisionist, hence the decree for eviction is bad in law. The last was that in the alternative the tenant is entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. ;;