- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is landlady's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 22nd of April, 2004 passed by Shri Gopal Shanker Pathak, J. S. C. C. /additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in S. C. C. Suit No. 15 of 2002.
(2.) THE applicant claiming himself as owner and landlady of house No. 111/98 (14-A) Ashok Nagar instituted S. C. C. suit No. 15 of 2002 against the defendant opposite party on the allegations that she purchased the aforesaid house from its erstwhile owner Shri Salauddin son of Shamsuddin Ahmed by means of a registered sale- deed dated 25th of November, 1999. THE defendant (hereinafter described as tenant) was the tenant of ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- in addition to 18 percent water and other taxes etc. He defaulted in making payment of rent w. e. f. 1st of April, 2000 to 31st of December, 2001 and is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 63,000/- and a sum of Rs. 11, 304/- as water tax and sewer charges. THE provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the house in question was got constructed after getting the map sanctioned in year 1988 and also the rent is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. THE tenancy was determined by notice dated 16th of February 2002 which was served on 21st of February 2002. Inspite of service of notice the tenant has not paid arrears of rent nor vacated the disputed premises, hence the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 71,300/- towards the rent, Rs. 12,834/- towards the taxes and damages at the rate of Rs. 120/- per day. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that its earlier owner was Shri Salauddin was not disputed in the reply. However, it was pleaded that the defendant has been tenant since the time of erstwhile owner Shri Salauddin at the rate of rent is Rs. 500/- per month and also 18 percent towards the taxes. It was further pleaded that the defendant has paid the rent up to March, 2000 and has stopped the payment of rent as the plaintiff landlady refused to issue receipt since April, 2000. The arrears of rent since April, 2000 till date is being deposited in the Court. Plea that the house was got constructed after getting the map sanctioned in year 1988 was denied and controverted and it was stated that the first assessment of the house in question was made on 1st of October 1978. Therefore, it was pleaded that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 1972 are applicable. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the Court below framed five points for determination. It has been found under point No. 1 that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month plus Rs. 90/- per month towards the taxes, as was pleaded by the defendant tenant. Under point No. 2 the Court found that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable as the first assessment of house in question is dated 1st of October 1978. As regards the service of notice determining the tenancy it was found that the notice was validly served on the defendant tenant, under point No. 3. The suit for ejectment was dismissed only on the ground that the notice determining the tenancy is not valid, vide points No. 4 and 5. The suit was decreed for recovery of arrears of rent from 1st of April, 2000 to the date of filing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month as also for recovery of Rs. 90/- per month for the aforesaid period. In the like manner it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the rent, damages and pendente lite.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree the present revision is at the instance of the landlady. Shri S. K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the landlady, in support of the revision urged only two points. He challenged the finding recorded by the Court below under the point No. 4 holding that the notice is invalid. He also challenged the finding of Court below on the point No. 1 i. e. the point relating to determination of the rate of rent. In reply, Shri Safuddin Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the tenant opposite party supported the judgment by placing reliance upon it and submitted that the findings recorded by the Court below being findings of fact cannot be challenged in revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act. In other words it was submitted that this Court has got limited jurisdiction as circumscribed under the aforesaid Section. The following two questions thus fall for determination before this Court : (1) Whether notice dated 16th of February 2002 determining the tenancy is valid in law or not? (2) Whether the finding recorded by the Court below on point No. 1 that the monthly rate of rent is Rs. 500/- besides Rs. 90/- towards the tax is perverse and/or based on the relevant material on record?;