- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-1995 passed in SCC No. 8 of 1994 by the Court of III Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE revisionist is the J and K Bank. THE suit was filed by the plaintiff-respon dents for recovery of arrears of rent along with water tax and drainage tax and also for eviction of the tenant from the accommodation No. 38/159, Meston Road, Kanpur I and II floor. THE suit has been decreed and for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist-applicant from the accommodation in question. The revision was presented on 24-8-1995 before this Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist and the respondent Sri A. N. Sinha requested to take up the revision on 30-8-1995. The learned counsel for the revisionist addressed the Court at length. When found that the Court was not inclined to accept his submis sions the learned counsel for the revisionist requested that the case may be ad journed so that the parties may negotiate and arrive at a compromise outside the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, Sri A. N. Sinha submitted that he had no objection if the revisionist wanted to negotiate and settle the matter outside the Court. The tenancy of the revisionist for the accommodation in question is on the basis of a registered tenancy has expired before service of the notice for eviction and damages. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that his client is a Bank, a Government Company and if they are evicted, a lot of inconvience to the bank and also to its customers is likely to be caused. Thus he requested that he would try to get the matter compromised between the parties. The landlord's representative was present in Court and Sri A. N. Sinha also obtained instructions from him and it was tentatively agreed between the parties that the rate of rent shall be enhanced and fixed at the rate of Rs. 8. 50 per so. ft. for both the floors and they may be filing the compromise document in Court. The enhanced rate would be effective w. e. f. 29-9-1993, which is the date of expiry of the Idase. On such developments the Court fixed 30-9-1995 as the date for further hearing.
(3.) THEREAFTER on the request of the revisionist and the respondent the case was adjourned. The interim order staying the eviction was extended. After seeking num ber of adjournments the revisionist did not file the compromise document and the matter was kept pending. The learned counsel for the revisionist stated on earlier occasions that parties have agreed for the compromise, the deed was not prepared and on some occasion it was submitted that the higher authorities of the Bank were to be contacted before entering into the compromise. After prolonged adjournments in the case when it became apparent that the revisionist is simply delaying the proceedings the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord insisted for disposal of the revision. The learned counsel for the revisionist filed photostat copies and typed copies of necessary papers, which he relied for addressing the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that he would not file any counter-affidavit to the application filed by the revisionist. The counsel for the parties consented that the revision be finally disposed of without record or formally admitting it. The facts in the present revision are not disputed. The revisionist is a tenant of the accommodation No. 38/159, Meston Road, Kanpur I and II floors at the rate of Rs. 5. 100/- per month exclusive of water and drainage taxes, which also payable by the tenant. A registered agreement of tennacy was entered into between the parties on 22-9-1983 for a period of ten years lease. The period of ten years expired on 21-9-1993. The notice under Section 106, T. P. Act dated 11-5-1994 was sent by the landlord-respondent to the revisionist, which was served on 14-5-1994. It is also stated that the building in question is outside the purview of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was for eviction and arrears of rent. The revisionist failed to comply with the request made in the notice and did not vacate the premises; hence the suit.;