- (1.) T. P. Garg, J. This is a tenant's petition directed against the judg ment of Small Causes Court, Roorkee, dated 29-4- 1991 and the Judgment dated 8-8-1991, passed by the District Judge, Haridwar (Annexures '1' and '2' to the petition respectively ). The petitioner has sought quashing of the order, dated 29-4-1991, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee, whereby he decreed the suit of the landlord, respondent No. 3, for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner, and the order, dated 8-8-1991, passed by the District Judge, Haridwar, confirming the same in revision.
(2.) RAGHUBIR Narain, respondent No. 3. filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee in the year 1987 alleging that he is the landlord of house No. 12 situate in Mohalla Hanuman Garhi (Chetan Deo Kutia), Kankhal, district Haridwar. Mahesh Chandra Barnwal, the petitioner, was a tenant in two rooms and one kitchen besides bath room and toilet, etc. On a monthly rent of Rs. 150 plus Rs. 5 as water tax per month. He had taken the premises on rent with effect from June 1984. The rent for the months of June and July, 1984 was paid in cash to the landlord. The landlord is employed as Professor in the State of Bihar and SC his visits to his home-town, Kankhal, are occasional, on account of which the tenant was required to deposit the amount of rent in the S. B. A/c of the landlord in Punjab National Bank. The tenant deposited rent for the month of August, 1984 in S. B. A/c No. 2184 in the Punjab National Bank in the name of the landlord. Thereafter, he did not pay any rent despite having been asked to pay time and again. Since the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1984 to 31-7-1987, amounting to Rs. 5,250 besides electricity con sumption charges amounting to Rs. 1,200, a notice, dated 13-8-1987 was given to him whereby his tenancy was terminated within a period of 30 days. The tenant received the said notice on 20-8-1987, but he failed to comply with the same and hence the suit The tenant was in arrears of rent, amount ing to Rs. 5,495, with effect from 1-9-1984 to 19-9-1987, besides electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs. 1,200, at the time of filing of the suit. The tenant-petitioner contested the suit and filed a written statement. While admitting his tenancy, the petitioner denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 150 per month. It was pleaded that the rate of rent was only Rs. 50 per month and this amount includes water charges. It was pleaded that the plaintiff never gave any receipt for the amount of rent paid to him. It was denied that any amount of rent for the month of August 1984 was deposited by him. It was pleaded that the plaintiff lives in the State of Bihar and occasionally visits Kankhal and recovers the amount of rent due ; that the tenant has already paid the amount of rent till the month of March, 1987; that rent for the month of April, 1987 was sent through Money Order, but the landlord refused to accept it; that the rent for the month of April, May and June, 1987 was deposited in the Court of Munsif, Haridwar and so he was not in arrears of rent. In his replication, the landlord has denied the averments made by the tenant in his written statement. It was, inter alia, pleaded that prior to induction of the petitioner as tenant in the demised premises, one Sri R. K. Chaturvedi, Cashier, Central Bank of India, Gurkul Kangri, Haridwar was the tenant, paying rent at the rate of Rs. 125 per month, and, who used to deposit the amount of rent in his S. B. A. /c that the said Sri Chaturvedi vacated the demised premises in the month of May, 1984, after which the demised premises were given to the petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per month ; it was denied that the tenant was not given the receipts in lieu of payment of rent.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Judge, Small Causes Court framed certain issues. The parties led evidences in support of their respec tive contentions. The learned Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute within a period' of two months. A decree for recovery of Rs. 5,400, as arrears of rent and compensation for use and occupation, was also passed. The tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which was heard by the learned District Judge Haridwar, and who, vide his judgment dated 8-8-1991 dismissed the same and confirmed the findings and order of the Small Causes Court. In the present petition affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record before me.;