PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) A simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment filed by the plaintiff opposite party took about 15 years for its decision by the trial court and about two years by this Court.
(2.) THIS is a defendant tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Scc Suit No. 4 of 1992 was instituted by the plaintiff landlord (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') for ejectment of the defendant tenant who is applicant herein, and hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant', in respect of five shops described as shop Nos. 12B, 13B, 14B, 15B and 16B, all situate in Mohalla Nai Bazar, Tappa Haweli, Pargana Basti East, District Basti. It suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that all the aforestated five shops in addition to other shops are recorded in the name of the landlord as house No. 382-A, Ward No. 2 in the municipal record and were assessed for the first time by the Municipal Authority in the year 1992, as they were not recorded in the municipal record earlier. Shop Nos. 12B, 13B and 14B were constructed in the year 1985 and shop Nos. 15B and 16B were constructed in the beginning of the year 1992. The landlord claimed that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shops as they are "new constructions" and are exempt from the operation of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). It was further pleaded that each shop Nos. 12B to 14B were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 393-75 inclusive of house tax, water tax, etc. and shop Nos.15B and 16B were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, each, inclusive of house tax, water tax etc. The tenant is in arrears of rent since 1st of July, 1991 in respect of shop Nos. 12B, 13B and 14B. In respect of shop Nos. 15B and 16B it was claimed that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. September, 1992 after giving adjustment of advance money amounting to Rs. 24,000/-. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the defendant tenant has made certain alterations in the shops without consent of the landlord and has disfigured them and the value and utility of the shops have been diminished on account of the structural changes made therein, unauthorisedly by the tenant. The tenancy was sought to be terminated by giving notices dated 1-10-1992, 13-10-1992, 19-10-1992 and 6-11-1992. All these notices were got returned after reading them by the tenant with the connivance of the postman. Consequently, a notice through telegram No. 8814/43 was sent on 11-11-1992 which was served on the same day, but the tenant has failed to vacate the disputed accommodation after expiry of the notice period.
(3.) THE suit was contested on number of pleas, although the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. The tenant came out with a case that the land originally belonged to Jagjiwan Das father of the plaintiff landlord who had six sons. The landlord raised the shops and grabbed the shares of his brothers. In the written statement, with regard to shop Nos. 15B and 16B it was admitted that these shops were constructed in the year 1992. As regards the other shops, the case was that they are old constructions and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. With regard to the rate of rent, it was pleaded that shop Nos. 12B, 13B and 14B each were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 262-50. The landlord used to receive the said amount as rent but he used to issue receipts for the inflated amount. The plea that the tenant has disfigured the shops by making constructions and alterations was also denied.;