N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 1985, passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby the Respondent's suit for ejectment of the applicant from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits was decreed.
(2.) THE facts in a nutshell, necessary for the decision of this civil revision, are that the Respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the applicant on the allegation that the applicant who was the tenant of the house in question on behalf of the Respondent was in arrears of rent for more than 4 months and had not paid the arrears inspite of a notice of demand having been served on him. Consequently he was a defaulter in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted on that ground. It was also asserted in the suit that the tenancy of the applicant had been terminated by serving upon him a notice in this behalf as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the applicant on the grounds that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent, that the notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and that the sum of Rs. 220/ - payable by with per month included the electricity consumption charges, house lax and water tax also. All these please have been negatived by the court below. It was also asserted by the applicant that since he has made the necessary deposit contemplated by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he was entitled to the benefit of that section which relieved him against his liability for eviction from the house in question on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. This plea also has been repelled by the court below on the finding that the wife of the applicant had constructed a house at Shastri Nagar in Ghaziabad and consequently in view of the proviso to Section 20(4) of the Act he was not entitled to the benefit of the said Section 20(4). The said proviso reads as thereunder: Provided that nothing in this Sub -section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has build oi has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. " The terra " family " has been defined in Clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act and in relation to a landlord or a tenant of the building means, inter alia, his or her spouse. Along with this revision an application purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the applicant seeking permission to file certain documents to indicate that Shastri Nagar, where the wife of the applicant had constructed a house, was beyond the limits of Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. An application for stay was also filed along with the revision. The Respondent put in appearance and filed counter affidavit both to the affidavit filed in support of the application for stay as also to the affidavit filed in support of the application for admitting additional evidence. Rejoinder affidavits have also been filed on behalf of the applicant.
(3.) SINCE the Respondent has put in appearance, this revision has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.;