Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, this petition takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2003 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1998 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Causes Court, Banda affirmed in S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2003 by judgment and order dated 29.4.2005 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Small Causes Court, Banda appended as Annexures-6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) CONCISE facts are as under : "Respondent-landlord filed S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1998 against the tenant-petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the shop, in question, was constructed in 1990. Rent of the shop in May, 1997 was Rs. 535.50 P. per month. He further claimed that shop No. 7 was constructed in 1987 and the shop in dispute as well as the entire building was assessed for the first time on 17.11.1992 which became effective from April, 1993. The landlord demanded rent from May, 1997 from him by means of notice dated 7.10.1997 and when the petitioner failed to pay the rent from May, 1997, landlord instituted aforesaid suit." The petitioner-tenant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations, pleading that since the shop, in question was constructed in 1990 and provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were not applicable. She set up a case that actual rent of the disputed shop was Rs. 510.30 P and not Rs. 535.50 P as claimed by the landlord and that the rent from May to June, 1997 was tendered by her through Money Order Receipt No. 1386 dated 7.10.1997 to the landlord which was refused. It was also alleged that rent from May, 1997 to July, 1997 was again tendered to the landlord through M.O. Receipt No. 1229 dated 16.10.1997 which too was refused by him.
(3.) SHE further claimed that disputed shop was constructed in 1984 and it was for the first time assessed w.e.f. 1.4.1985. SHE also stated that she had deposited entire arrears of rent together with interest and cost of the suit on the first date of hearing. It was also pleaded by her that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was received by the landlord as a security money and had promised to return the same when the shop will be vacated and that amount of Rs. 10,000 was never returned by the landlord, therefore, he was not entitled to determine the tenancy of the petitioner ; that disputed shop was taken on rent by her in 1986 and agreement of tenancy was required to be submitted in 1991 to obtain licence for sale of medicines, therefore, after depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000 with the landlord an agreement dated 23.4.1991 was obtained. She alleged that her tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not determined as alleged by the landlord.;