- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 of Sri R. P. Shukla VIIIth Additional District Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-revisionist and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties were heard at length at the time of admission of this revision. Affidavit, counter affidavit, supplementary affidavits have been filed. The revision can be finally disposed of at the admission stage without calling for the record of the trial Court. The brief allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff being owner landlord of the disputed shop, let it out to the defendant revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 3000. In addition to this Rs. 80 per month were payable as water tax from the tenant revisionist. Rent from 1-9-1990 to 31-3-1991 amounting to Rs. 21. 000/- be sides water tax amounting to Rs. 560 fell due from the defendant revisionist. The notice of demand of eviction was served which was not complied, hence suit for eviction was filed. The defendant revisionist contested the suit on the ground that the agreed rent was Rs. 1000/- per month and not Rs. 3007- per month and the water tax was also included in this rent of Rs. 1000/- p. m. The payment of rent and water tax was made by the defendant-Tenant. A controversy was also raised whether the shop was/ constructed in the year 1971. The validity of notice was also challenged.
(3.) THE trial Court found that the disputed shop was constructed in/the year 1971. It further found that the notice was not invalid. Likewise, it $8\tfid that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 3,000 p. m. and that the defendant revisionist was liable to pay water tax @ 80 p. m. in addition to agreed rent. It further found that rent and water tax were due from the defendant revisionist. Accordingly the suit was decreed. In this revision the findings of the trial Court regarding the year of construc tion of the disputed shop, validity of notice of eviction, rate of rent and water tax were not challenged, nor it was challenged that the revisionist is not liable to pay water tax in addition to agreed rate of rent.;