- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act whereunder up setting the decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court the revisional court while allowing the revision and setting aside the trial Court's decree had decreed the plaintiff's suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute and for recovery of pendentelite and future mesne profit at the rate of rent and also recovery of electric and water consumption charges as claimed, the petitioner - tenant has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.
(2.) I have heard Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. From the materials on record it appears that the plaintiff respondent has purchased the building of which the premises in dispute forms a part on 12-3-1978. Asserting that the defendant was a persistent defaulter in the payment of rent, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the month of July 1981 claiming that in spite of the notice, dated 12-10-1980 the tenant had not either paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the house in question. In the plaint, the plaintiff also alleged that the tenanted accommodation consisted of only first floor of the building in question and the defendant tenant was also liable to pay electric and water charges which has not been paid although the liability in respect thereof rested on him.
(3.) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant denying plaint allegations and asserting that the plaintiff No. 1 had received rent till 30-4-79 without any rent receipt on 6-5-1979. It was also asserted subsequent thereto when the monthly rent due was not accepted the same was sent by money order on 3-8-1979 which was refused. THEreafter the same was deposited in the proceedings under Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evidence) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE defendant also claimed that besides the first floor the second floor of the building was also under his tenancy. It was further asserted that although the defendant had not been making payment of water charges as the defendant did not use electricity and water was not supplied to him. The plaintiff No. 1 Malti Devi had examined her son Ashok Kumar as PW 1 in support of her case. In his deposition, dated 14-1-1982 the PW 1 had stated that the defendant was the tenant in the first floor of the building, the ground floor whereof as well as the second floor of which building was in the possession of the landlord. It has also been stated that the defendant had never paid rent to his mother.;