A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS is a tenant's application in revision against the judgNo.1.ment and order passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Jhansi, exercising the powers of the Small Causes Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for the eviction of the applicant as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation calculated at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month.
(2.) IN this case the landlord (plaintiff-opposite party) put in appearance at the stage of admission. Thereafter both the parties agreed through their counsel that the revision may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. Shortly, the plaint case was that the disputed accommodation which is the first floor portion of premises no. 91 Khatriana, Jhansi, was constructed in the year 1976 and it was let out to the defendant-applicant bank on October 1, 1978 for a period of five years at the end of which the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant-applicant to vacate the premises and to pay arrears of rent for the period October 1, 1983 to November 7, 1983 and damages for use and occupation from November 8, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was asserted that as the period of ten years prescribed in U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had not expired since the construction of the building, the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the building under tenancy. The suit was contested by the applicant. The defence was that there was an understanding between the parties that so long as the defendant desired to remain in occupation he could continue as a tenant of the premises. In any case the building was more than ten years old. Besides there were other tenants also prior to the letting out of the premises to the applicant.
(3.) THE parties led oral and documentary evidence in respect of their respecNo.1.tive pleas on a consideration of which the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. THE damages were granted at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month and not Rs. 5,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant applicant has filed this revision. During the pendency of the revision an application was filed by the applicant for acceptance of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in an attempt to prove that according to the agreement between the parties the tenancy was initially for five years but was liable to be extended upto fifteen years at the option of the tenant. I have passed a separate order rejecting the application for additional evidence on the ground that there did not exist any valid ground for reception of additional evidence at this stage.;