- (1.) HEARD Shri R. S. Misra and shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner-landlord and Shri P. K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri amitabh Agarwal for the respondent-tenant.
(2.) SHRI Deo Narayan Jaiswal-the landlord of the shop in dispute at Malviya Road, deoria, filed a Suit No. 7 of 1988 for ejectment and arrears of rent from 1-2-1986 to 20-6-1988, with interest of Rs. 10,868. 25; water tax of Rs. 1687. 32 and house lax of Rs. 137. 50 per month for use and occupation upto 21-6-1988, and Rs. 375/- per month as mesne profits w. e. f. 21-6-1988. It was alleged that the shop was newly constructed in 1979, and thus the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, (In short, the Act)are not attracted. The defendant is a tenant @ Rs. 375/- per month. He carries on the business of selling medicines in the shop. The tenant did not pay the rent, inspite of demand since February 1986; made considerable damage to the shop and has sublet the shop to Shri Bindeshwari Mall son of shri Ram Surat Mall without petitioner's permission. The landlord also claimed the possession of the shop for his bonafide need and stated that the notice of demand of arrears of rent and ejectment was sent on 13-5-1988 by registered post through his counsel was served by refusal on 20-5-1988.
(3.) IN the written statement, the defendants alleged that Shri Kaushal Nandan was the owner of the shop and some more properties adjacent to the shop. The plaintiff had purchased the property from Shri Kaushla nand. At that time late Bhim Raj, father of the defendants, was the tenant. Earlier the plaintiff had filed a Suit No. 83 of 1977, Deo narayan v. Bhim Raj for ejectment in Judge small Causes Court in which parties entered into a compromise under which Bihari Lal, murari Lal, Purshottam Lal, Moti Lal and vinod Kumar, all sons of Bhim Raj, were accepted as tenant of the shop. The new construction of the shop was to begin on 15-11-1978 and to be completed upto 15-2-1979. The rent at the old rate was to be paid until the constructions were complete. The landlord was not given any right under the compromise to increase the rent in future. The landlord was required to get the house cleaned and repaired annually. The defendants are occupying the shop as old tenants and that provisions of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 are fully applicable to the shop. The landlord had received the rent upto 17-1-1986 vide receipt No. 41 and started putting pressure on the defendants to increase the rent. He refused to accept the rent after february 1986. The rent for the period 1-2-1986 to 28-2-1987 was sent by money order. The landlord refused to accept it, on which the rent was deposited in his favour under Section 30 of the Act. The defendants denied that they had damaged the shop or have sublet it to any person. Shri vindeshwari Mall is not the sub-tenant.;