- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri Tanveer Alam, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) BY the present civil revision filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicant- revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 20th April, 2002 by which the applica tion under Order 9 Rule 13 C. PC. has been rejected. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the applicant praying for the eviction of the defendant and for the recovery of ar rears of rent Rs, 30,036. 82 paisa and damages to the extent of Rs. 4,854. 67 paisa as well as Rs. 31. 26 paisa per day till the eviction taken place. According to the plaint aver ments, the defendant is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 600 per month from 01. 10. 1988 and 25% was to be en hanced after 48 months.
(3.) IT has been stated that Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the shop in dispute as the same was constructed in the year, 1988 and inspite of the no tice having been sent on 04. 08. 1997, which was served upon him on 07. 08. 1997, the defendant has not va cated the shop, hence the suit for evic tion was filed. Judge Small Cause Court has decreed the suit on 23rd November, 2001 for eviction as well as for recov ery of Rs. 30. 036 and mesne profit to the extent of Rs. 4,854. 67 paisa.;