Umeshwar Pandey - (1.) -Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Since both agree for final disposal of the revision, it is being disposed of as such.
(2.) THE judgment dated 18.10.2006 is under challenge by the tenant in the present revision petition given under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act. On the basis of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (Annexure-2) dated 25.7.2001, the plaintiff respondent sought to determine the tenancy of the petitioner revisionist in respect of disputed premises. There is no denial of the service of the notice. The suit was contested by the revisionist tenant taking several grounds and also inter alia pleading that the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in the present context should be given to it and that no damages at a higher rate than the rate of agreed rent is to be awarded. The court below while deciding the controversies as placed before it by the respective parties happened to find that the revisionist tenant was in some arrears of payment of rent and no benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act could be made permissible to it. Accordingly, it found the suit for the relief of eviction of the defendant revisionist as wholly justified. The Court also held that the suit for recovery of aforesaid arrears of rent including the damages at a enhanced rate than that of the agreed rent, i.e., Rs. 4,000 per month should also be made permissible to the landlord plaintiff. Accordingly, the present decree has been passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant contends that in the first place the tenant was not in arrears of rent even for shortest period and that the benefit, as permissible under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, was wrongly refused to it by the court below. Learned counsel further submitted that the rate at which the damages has been granted, i.e., Rs. 4,000 per month, was not at all permissible under law and it should be, if at all possible for grant of any damages, only @ agreed rent, i.e., Rs. 2,500 per month.
(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid submission, Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the landlord-opposite party, almost conceded to the fact that in the present matter the damages should have been awarded at the agreed rate of rent (Rs. 2,500 per month) and in that context the Court may pass suitable orders. In reply to the first contention of the revisionist, it has been submitted from the side of the landlord that even though it may be taken for granted that payment of rent was up to date and complete, the ground for passing the decree for eviction was still available to the Court. The notice given under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act stipulates three grounds including the one which refers to the tenant being in arrears of payment of rent. Therefore, to say that if the payment of rent was up to date on the date of notice or on the date of filing of the suit, the benefit as available to a tenant under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act may not be of much consequence to it. It was specifically stated in that notice by the landlord that he did not want to keep and continue the tenant Corporation in the disputed premises and the tenancy stood terminated on the expiry of the statutory period from the date of service of the same. Thus, Sri Srivastava stresses that without attracting the benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, the suit could be decreed only in the light of the aforesaid averments made in the notice given to the tenant.;