- (1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastav, J. Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners and contesting respondent.
(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. The petitioners are tenants of the disputed shop No. B-11 on the first floor situated in Gupta Complex, 161, Nehru Road, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow, on monthly rent of Rs. 660/ -. The tenant was in arrears of rent, which was not de posited since 1. 8. 2001 despite repeated request. The tenancy was consequently terminated by means of registered notice dated 26. 3. 2002 under section 106 Transfer of Property Act. Despite receipt of notice, rent was not tendered hence, the suit was instituted in the Court of Judge, Small Causes. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners in that after institu tion of the suit, the tenant deposited Rs. 11,500/- on 4. 12. 2002 and according to the petitioners, the tenant carries on business of ready-made garments and this is only source of their livelihood. It is further submitted that the tenants have tendered huge amount of premium before taking over the possession of shop in question and at the relevant time it was agreed between the parties that if the tenants are unable to deposit the rent and fall in arrears, then the rent due will be adjusted from the amount already deposited towards premium.
(3.) EVIDENCE was led. The Judge, Small Causes Courts, came to a conclusion that the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is not applicable. Notice dated 26. 3. 2002 was held to be valid and served on the plaintiff. Issue No. 1 was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for damages and eviction. Issue No. 4 was whether there was default in making payment of arrears of rent. Issue No. 5 was whether the plaintiff had received Rs. 95,000/- as security on 28. 10. 1992, which was liable to be adjusted towards arrears. Finding of the Trial Court on all these issues are against the tenants. Counsel for the tenant has emphatically submitted that the Courts below recorded perverse finding without taking into consideration the evidence, which was the receipt of premium, thus, the impugned judgment is vitiated and liable to be quashed.;