R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will also dispose Civil Revision No. 404 of 1987 (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta). This revision has been filed by the tenant under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against judgment and decree dated 11.2.1987 passed by J.S.C.C. (IInd Additional District Judge), Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 83 of 1981 decreeing the suit with proportionate costs for rent, damages and eviction against the defendant.
(2.) THE revision No. 404 of 1987 has been filed by the landlord regarding the finding given against him. The brief facts to decide the revision are as follows: It is alleged that the revisionist is a tenant of three shops and a gumti and the rate of rent was Rs. 260/ - but it was raised from Rs. 260/ - to Rs. 425/ - after the construction of "gumti". I need not go regarding arrears of rent regarding which finding has been given by the trial court. While deciding issue No. 1 the trial court gave a finding that amount has been paid in the court under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972) and order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The trial court gave a finding that the rate of rent is Rs. 260/ - and not Rs. 425/ -. But water tax has not been paid @ Rs. 13/ - which was part of rent. The trial court passed the following order: ......The plaintiff is awarded a decree of Rs. 4,482.04 paise for rent due from 12.5.1979 till the date of suit, besides pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 260/ - p.m. plus Rs. 13/ - for taxes. The plaintiff will however withdraw the amounts in deposit in Misc. Case under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. In this Court. The amounts drawn by plaintiff will be adjusted in the decretal amount. The defendant is however allowed one months time for vacating the premises in suit and handing over their possession to plaintiff. A decree of Rs. 894.49 paise for water tax and Rs. 178.83 for sewer taxes.
(3.) THE only ground which has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist Shri S.M. Dayal is that since there were three tenancies and one consolidated notice (Annexure No. 1) is bad in law and lower court while deciding issue No. 2 on this aspect is not sustainable in law. The lower court observed that since the rent was being paid in consolidative mode for all accommodation in question and four accommodation are held in possession of the tenant and as such though there may be by different contracts yet the rent is being paid consolidatedly and as such suit can be brought and suit is not bad for multifarious causes of action. Shri Dayal has quoted judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra v. Judge, Small Cause Court, Farukhabad and others, 1984 (10) ALR 191. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that if the tenant is holding two tenaments it cannot be treated single unit and the suit is not maintainable when the agreement of tenancy are different even if the two tenaments are in one building.;