SUBHASH CHANDRA HUF THRU KARTA AND ANR Vs. AJAY GUPTA
LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-65
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 18,2019

Subhash Chandra Huf Thru Karta And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
AJAY GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi for the plaintiff-revisionists. None appears for the defendant-opposite party, despite sufficient service.
(2.) The plaintiff-revisionists instituted a suit of the nature of small causes being SCC Suit No. 50/2010 against the defendant-opposite party (for short 'the tenant') for eviction from a shop in his tenancy bearing No. 2 in Building No. 251, New No. 113, Mukund Nagar, Ghaziabad and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. It was alleged that rent of the shop was Rs. 3390/- per month. The tenancy was from month to month starting from the first day of the month and ending on the last day. It was further alleged that rent till February 2010 was paid by the tenant by cheque, but rent and electricity charges from March 2010 onwards had not been paid, despite service of notice dated 19.5.2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act'). It was further asserted that as the rent of the premises exceeded Rs. 2000/- per month, consequently, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The tenant had failed to vacate even after expiry of statutory period of thirty days, consequently, the suit was instituted.
(3.) The suit was contested by the tenant by filing written statement, in which it was admitted that the rent of the shop was Rs. 3390/- per month. The tenant asserted that the plaintiff-revisionists have deliberately stopped accepting the rent. He accepted the receipt of notice, but claimed that along with the reply to said notice, he remitted a sum of Rs. 13560/- by draft dated 3.6.2010 drawn on Bank of Baroda. The tenant also asserted that previously he was paying Rs. 400/- per month towards electricity charges to the landlord, but the landlord was not depositing the amount with the Electricity Department. He also asserted that the plaintiffs had no locus to institute the suit. The tenant also claimed protection from eviction under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.