S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order dismissing the revision of the petitioner-tenant filed by him under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, affirming the decree of the trial court for his ejectment from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent for damages for use and occupation, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing thereof.
(2.) I have heard Sri Z. Zilani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff respondents had filed a suit praying for a decree of ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute under his tenancy. It was alleged that the said premises had been let out on a rental of Rs. 15 per month which was lying In arrears since 4.11.1974. It was further claimed that in spite of notice dated 5.6.1980, the defendant had neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises In dispute. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant petitioner on various grounds. In the written statement the rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff was denied asserting that in fact the premises in dispute had been let out at a rental of Rs. 8.50 per month duly. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, however, the defendant admitted that rent from 1st April, 1978 to 31st July, 1981 had fallen due which was deposited on 24.7.81 In court as the plaintiff had refused to accept the money order sent to him tendering the aforesaid amount. It was also asserted that the amount deposited in court included the adjudgment of Rs. 60 which the defendant had paid towards taxes.
(3.) THE trial court on an appraisal of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the rate of rent on which the premises In dispute had been let out was only Rs. 8.50 and not Rs. 15 as claimed by the plaintiff. It was further found that the defendant had not tendered or paid the rent for the period prior to 1.4.1978 and consequently, the rent which had remained in arrears on the date of the service of the notice contemplated under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was for a period of more than four months and consequently defendant was a defaulter as contemplated under the aforesaid provision. THE combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff which had been duly served on the defendant petitioner was held to be valid in law. THE findings of the trial court were affirmed by the revisional court. The learned counsel for the defendant petitioner has strenuously contended that the combined notice sent by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and raising demand for the payment of the arrears of rent was invalid and the suit based on such a notice was liable to be dismissed. What has been urged is that the notice in question contained a demand in regard to the payment of the arrears of rent at a higher rate then agreed upon. Since the rate of rent agreed upon was only Rs. 8.50 per month whereas the claim in regard to the arrears was made on the basis of the rate of rent being Rs. 15 per month, such a notice containing an exaggerated demand, according to the learned counsel for the defendant, has to be treated as a notice invalid in law and a suit filed on the basis of such a notice was liable to be dismissed.;