- (1.) This is tenant s petition for quashing of the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh in JSCC suit No. 49 of 1995 Smt. Ramshree Devi v. Anokhey Lal, decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent, and the order of its affirmance dated 20.08.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Aligarh in JSCC Revision No. 85 of 2003.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that petitioner has been tenant of premises of house No. 1/74 situated at Ghanshyampuri, Aligarh. Suit was filed with the allegation that defendant-petitioner was tenant of one room and one Varandah at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month plus 7% water tax and Rs. 60/- per month as electricity charges. It was mentioned that rent along with electricity charges was not paid since 01.02.1990 and the water tax was not paid since 01.04.1986. The claim set up by plaintiff was opposed by filing written statement by contending therein that tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month inclusive of water tax and further rent till November, 1994 had been paid, and thereafter, as landlord was not accepting the rent, rent since December, 1994 was sent by money-order, which was refused, then deposits of rent were made under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. During pendency of proceedings Anokhey Lal died and his legal heirs and representatives were brought on record. In support of their respective claims Smt. Ramshree Devi got examined herself and the defendant examined Karan Singh as well as herself. Six issues were framed before the Judge Small Cause Court, and the first issue was decided in favour of petitioner that the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. The other issues were decided in favour of plaintiff-landlord holding that petitioner was in arrears of rent and JSCC suit was decreed. Aggrieved petitioner preferred SCC revision, which has also been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Rishi Chaddha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, both, the Judge Small Cause Court as well as Revisional Court, have committed material irregularity in misreading the statement of the petitioner and without appreciating the controversy in its totality, on surmises and conjectures have proceeded to record perverse finding in respect of arrears of rent, as such the orders impugned are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed.;