Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief: "(A) A decree for ejectment against the defendant from the accommodation in use and occupation of the defendant in a portion of the ground floor of the premises No.16/115 Civil Lines (popularly knows as G.N.K. College, Building) Kanpur Nagar. Boundary of the entire premises No.16/11 Civil Lines, Kanpur North :Public Road South :Premises No.16/11 (Bhargava Estate and boundary wall of premises No.16/114) East: Premises No.16/116 (Bhargava Estate) West:Boundary Wall of Premises No.16/114 (B) A decree for Rs.3693/- being arrears of rent for the period 1.1.2002 to 14.7.2003. (C) A decree for Rs.4060/- being damages from 15.7.2003 till the date of the suit @ Rs.20/- day. (D) A decree for Rs.1296/- for water and sewer taxes @ 18% per annum from 1.2.2001 to 31.1.2004, (E) A decree for Rs.300/- being expenses of the legal notice dated 8.6.2003. (F) A decree for Rs.200/- being pendente lite and future damages tentatively fixed @Rs.20/- per day (additional court fee onn any amount in excess of Rs.200/- will be paid during execution proceedings). (G) A decree for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum over the amunt found due from the defendants. (H) Costs of the suit"
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and is the owner and landlord of the disputed house bearing Municipal No.16/115, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar. These facts have been admitted by the defendant-petitioner/tenant as also evident from paragraphs 2 and 3 of this petition. The defendant-petitioner was a tenant in the disputed house at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. By notice dated 8.6.2003, under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner was terminated by the plaintiff-respondent/landlord and arrears of rent was also demanded. Even after the expiry of the period of notice the defendant-petitioner/tenant had not vacated the disputed premises and as such the plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed S.C.C. Suit No.40 of 2004 (Guru Narain Khatri High School Society Vs. Smt. Uma Devi). In support of its clear averment in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and thus, is exempt from operation of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed in evidence a copy of certificate under Societies Registration Act. The Manager of the Institution had made a clear averment in this regard in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in evidence. The defendant-petitioner has led oral evidence of her husband Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, who in his cross examination on 22.9.2007 has not even questioned the correctness of the copy of Registration certificate of the plaintiff's Society but merely stated with regard to the documents filed in evidence by the plaintiff that neither he nor his counsel has obtained information about the documents. Thus, with regard to the termination of tenancy and default in payment of rent, evidences were led by the parties. Ultimately, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29.4.2014, passed by the 2nd Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with this judgment the defendant-petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 70 of 2014 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.12 Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-petitioner/tenant has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Submissions;