- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri B. D. Upadhyay, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY the present civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 28. 7. 2005 passed by the District Judge, Nainital, whereby the suit No. 24 of 1977 Smt. A. G. Sanwal and Ors. Vs. Leeladhar Parasad has been decreed. Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents being Suit No. 24 of 1977 praying for arrears of rent, taxes, damages and ejectment. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it has been stated as under : "8. That the details of arrears of rent, taxes and damages payable by the defendant till the date of the suit are as follows : (a) arrears of rent 2. 2. 1995 to 22. 5. 1997 Rs. 8,016,166 (b) arrears of taxes from 1. 12. 1986 to the date of the suit (water tax @ Rs. 12. 50% of the rent, scav enging tax @ Rs. 12. 00% of the rent and sewer tax @ Rs. 3. 00% of the rent. Rs. 11,577=03 (c) damages at least @ Rs. 100=00 per day from 23. 5. 1997 to the date of the suit. Rs. 11,700=00" In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff no. 1 has received a notice under section 30 (5) of the LJ. R Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to the effect that the defendant has deposited a sum of Rs. 15,6007- on 19th June, 1997 in the Court of Munsif, Nainital in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1987 to wards the rent of the shop in dispute payable from 2nd February, 1992 to 1st February, 1995. Further the plaintiff has also claimed the water tax, sewer tax as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint. It has been stated in the plaint that the rent is due from 1st December, 1986 onwards. Paragraph 3 of the plaint is quoted below : "3. That the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent taxes of the shop in dispute from 1. 12. 1986 onwards to the plaintiffs and rendered himself liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute and to pay the arrears of rent and taxes together with interest thereon @ Rs. 18% per annum. The taxes of the shop an dispute are pay able as follows:- " (a) Water tax @ Rs. 12. 50%'of the rent. : (b) Scavenging tax @ Rs. 12. 00 of the rent and (c) Sewer tax @ Rs. 3. 00% of the rent. "
(3.) THE defendant has contested the case by filing a written statement. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, it has been sated that the plaintiff has paid the rent to the extent of Rs. 3257- per month, which was inclusive of taxes and in order to avoid the eviction proceed ings, he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U. P Act No. 13 of 1972. He continued to deposit the rent in the Court and therefore, has prayed for adjustment of the said amount. In paragraph 15 of the written statement, it has been stated that the defendant was regularly paying the rent to the plaintiffs till Nov. 85 and when the tendered the rent for the months of Dec. 85 and January and February, 1986 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff refused to take the same, therefore, the same was sent by the defendant by money order and the same was refused too by the plain tiffs. THE defendant has stated that it is wholly false allegation that he has not paid the rent from 1st December, 1986. In paragraph 19 of the written statement it has been stated that the defendant is only liable to pay the rent and mot the taxes as claimed by the plaintiffs as he is regularly paying the rent and he also deposited the rent, taxes and other expenses as claimed by the plaintiffs since 02. 02. 1995 on the first date of hearing so he is not liable to be evicted and is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. act No. 13 of 1972.;