- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenants' revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 13th August, 2004 passed in SCC Suit No. 13 of 1997, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,46,900/-, damages amounting to Rs. 16,200/- and future damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day and also for ejectment of the defendants/tenants, who are applicants in the above revision.
(2.) HITENDRA Kumat Ahuja and A. K. Ahuja the two brothers instituted SCC Suit No. 13 of 1997 against the present applicants and Rajpal Singh Yadav, defendant/proforma respondent No. 3 in the revision on the allegations that they let out the disputed show room/property to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/ -. The defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. Initially monthly rent used to be paid by single cheque in their joint names subsequently on the ground of convenience, it was agreed upon by the defendants/tenants that they would pay separate cheques to each plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The defendants had paid the rent up to September, 1994 to the plaintiff No. 1 and up to November, 1994 to the plaintiff No. 2 and thus, the rent up to October 1994 stands paid up. The defendants defaulted in payment of rent since November, 1994 inspite of the repeated demands and a notice terminating the tenancy dated 3rd January, 1997 was sent which was personally served on 13th January, 1997 on defendant No. 1 and on 21st January, 1997 on defendant Nos. 2 and 3. They have failed to vacate the premises in question after the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The plea that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the monthly rent is more than Rs. 2,000/- hence the building is exempt was also pleaded. In the written statement relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with respect to the tenanted property was admitted vide its para 1. It was also admitted that the defendants agreed to pay half and half rent to each plaintiff and pleaded that in this view of the matter the plaintiffs should have filed separate suits and the present suit is not maintainable. The suit was mainly contested on the pleas that the defendants are not liable to pay any rent since November, 1994 on the ground that an oral agreement to sell, was entered into between the parties in the month of November, 1990, with respect to the disputed property for Rs. Five lac in order. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the disputed property as they were in need of money to discharge their financial obligations to Bank. But the plaintiffs after receiving the amount from the defendants failed to pay it to the Bank. The defendants are in occupation of the disputed property since November, 1994 as its owners. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has come to an end and the suit is barred by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, vide paras 23, 23-A, 23-B and 24 of the written statement. It was further pleaded that the defendants got their names mutated in the property register of Nagar Palika, Meerut. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases before the trial Court. The defendants in spite of the repeated opportunities granted to them chose not to appear and participate in the final hearing of the suit. The defendants felt themselves satisfied by filing written arguments and did not advance oral arguments. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2004 decreed the suit on the finding that the theory of payment of Rs. Five lac as sale consideration in pursuance of an oral agreement is not proved. It concluded that there is no convincing evidence to establish that any such agreement to sell between the parties was entered into or was ever acted upon. It also rejected the plea of the defendants that both the plaintiffs should have instituted separate suits as it was found that contract of tenancy between the parties was one. It in the absence of any documentary evidence and on the basis of the attending facts and circumstances of the case disbelieved the case of the defendants that a sum of Rs. Five lac was given in three instalments. The service of the notice determining the tenancy was held sufficient as it was personally served on the defendants and the suit was decreed accordingly.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present revision is at the instance of defendant No. 1, M/s Yadav Motors and defendant No. 2 Kunwar Pal Singh Yadav. Defendant No. 3 Sri Rampal Singh Yadav has not come forward to challenge the judgment and decree of the Court below. Heard Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, alongwith Sri R. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri M. K. Gupta alongwith Sri Madan Mohan, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.;