MOTILAL GUPTA Vs. NIYAD RAM
LAWS(ALL)-1989-8-50
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 04,1989

Motilal Gupta Appellant
VERSUS
Niyad Ram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.N. Dikshit, J. - (1.) APPLICANT Moti Lal Gupta feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 1989, passed by Sri U.C. Saxena, IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge. Moradabad, in S.C.C. Suit No. 55 of 1985 decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery of rent and damages etc. has preferred this revision. The facts in brief are that the applicant was a tenant on the second floor of the plaintiff's (Niyad Ram's) house No. 277, Mohalla Baradari, District Moradabad @ Rs. 180/ - per month. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff -opp. party that the rent was not paid by the defendant -applicant from 1 -4 -84 to 31 -12 -85.
(2.) IT was also alleged by the plaintiff that the building have been constructed some time in the year 1979 and as such the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. A notice terminating the tenancy and recovery of arrears of rent was sent within the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was served on the defendant. On the failure of the defendant -applicant to comply with the requirements of the notice the suit was filed. This suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. It was alleged by the defendant -applicant that the plaintiff has wrongly claimed rent @ Rs. 180/ - per month while in fact there was an agreement between the plaintiff -opp party and the defendant -applicant that the rent of the accommodation is Rs. 100/ -. The defendant -applicant also alleged that the building is an old construction and would be subject to the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also alleged by the defendant -applicant that the rent @ Rs. 100/ - per month had been paid from October, 1985 for which no receipt has been issued by the plaintiff opp. party. As regards the payment of water -tax and electricity charges, defendant -applicant alleged that the same were stopped by him. The plaintiff -opp. party had no concern whatsoever.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties and the evidence so adduced in support thereof, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20 -2 -89, decreed the suit.;


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