- (1.) This is defendant's revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1987 passed by Sri Brij Mohan Joshi, the then IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Ujagar Mal Jain Instituted SCC Suit No. 58 of 1978 for the relief of possession after ejectment of deceased defendant No. 1 Asha Ram (whose legal heirs are defendant-opposite party Nos. 2/1 to 2/5) and the alleged sub-tenant-Shiv Charan Das, the present defendant-revisionist, from a shop situate in Mandi Ghanshyam Ganj, Quasba Baraut, Tahsil Baghpat in district Meerut and for recovery of arrears of rent and mense profits. It was alleged that Late Asha Ram defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the disputed shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and that he had failed to pay rent w.e.f. 1.4.1975 onwards, and has also illegally sub-let the shop to Shiv Charan Das-defendant No. 2. The shop was said to have been constructed in the year 1973 and consequently it was alleged that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not apply to the shop in question. Notice to quit dated 6.1.1978 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to Asha Ram, the original tenant. Neither he, nor his sub-tenant vacated the disputed shop. Besides the relief of possession over the shop, a sum of Rs. 6,443/- was claimed as arrears of rent for the period 6.2.1978, Rs. 750/- as mesne profits, up to the date of the suit and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per month.
(3.) Asha Ram, defendant No. 1 contested the suit and admitting the fact that he was the tenant of the shop in question, pleaded that he had vacated the shop in the year 1968 itself and that no rent was due against him as he had never been in possession of the shop after vacating the same. He has also alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 650/- per year and not Rs. 200/- per month and that he had not sub-let the disputed shop to the defendant No. 2 Shiv Charan Das. He maintained that the shop is an old one and the provisions of the Act applied.;