Siddhartha Varma - (1.) The instant revision has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 19.3.2016 by which the suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed. On 21.5.2012, the respondent/landlord by means of a notice sent by Registered Post determined the tenancy of the Applicants/tenants on account of arrears of rent. He therefore after determining the tenancy requested the tenants to pay the arrears within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and, thereafter, to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff/landlord. On 19.6.2012, the defendants/tenants replied to the notice and submitted that as there was no default in the payment of rent, the notice be discharged. Thereafter, the plaintiff landlord filed the suit in which the impugned judgement and decree has been passed. The Suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff was the landlord of the premises being Premises No. 117/609 Pandu Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, and that the defendants were tenants in the premises and that the latter had defaulted in the payment of rent and, therefore, their tenancy stood terminated. As they had not vacated the premises the suit had to be filed.
(2.) The plaintiff landlord had stated that the rate of rent of the premises in question was Rs. 1900/- per month and as there was no written agreement between the landlord and the tenant taxes at the rate of 18% had to be added to the amount of Rs. 1900/- and, therefore, the rent which was payable was Rs. 2242/- per month and, therefore, the premises was out of purview of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(3.) Further, the case of the plaintiff/landlord was that as payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 1900/- per month with effect from 1.7.2010 to 30.11.2011 totalling Rs. 32,300/- alongwith taxes to the tune of Rs. 5814/- were due from the tenant the suit had to be decreed. The plaintiff/landlord had also given the details of the other default which the tenant had made. The defendant had stated his case in the written statement and had alleged that though the rent of the premises was Rs. 1585/- he was, in addition to the rent, paying Rs. 315 and therefore the total rent which he was paying was Rs. 1900/-. This he had stated in paragraph 12 of the written statement. He had further stated that in the amount of Rs. 1,585/- the house tax and the sever tax were included. Therefore, the premises in question was within the purview of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.;