A.N. Dikshit, J. - (1.) THE Applicant has filed this revision against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.89 passed by VIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar decreeing the suit of the plaintiff -opposite -party for ejectment recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 1.7.83 to 26.5.85 and damages at the rate of Rs. 137.50 per month besides other taxes. Facts encompassing the controversy are that Kanpur Vidya Mandir Society is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act (Plaintiff No. 1). Kanpur Vidya Mandir Mahila Inter College (plaintiff No. 2) and Kanpur Vidya Mandir Mahila Degree College (Plaintiff No. 3) are educational institutions run by the aforesaid society, These two educational institutions are recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. and Kanpur University respectively. Dr. I.C. Gupta is the Secretary and Manager of the plaintiffs.
(2.) THESE three plaintiffs filed a suit against the applicant alleging that premises No. 7/147 Kanpur is vested in the aforesaid educational institution and the entire income of the said premises is used exclusively for the purposes of the said educational institutions. The defendant (applicant) was a tenant of a tin -shed shop on the ground floor constructed in 1978 at the rate of 137/ - per month besides other taxes. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the shop in question is exempt from the operation of the Act XIII of 1972 as amended up -to date. The defendant did not pay the rent and taxes w.e.f. 1.7.83. Consequently, a notice dated 22.4.85 was served on the defendant on 26.4.85 determining the tenancy of the defendant which came to an end on 26.5.85. As the defendant did not comply with the requirements of the notice, the suit was filed. The defendant (applicant) filed the written -statement and stated that the contract of tenancy between the parties was reduced into writing but the copy whereof was not given to him. A security of Rs. 1500/ - was also deposited and has been encashed. The defendant -applicant further alleged that initially the rent of the accommodation in suit was Rs. 125/ - per month which was later on enhanced to Rs. 137.50 per month. This amount, it was alleged, included all the taxes. The defendant further stated that cheques were sent towards the payment of rent but were deliberately not encashed by the plaintiffs which resulted in arrears. However, receipt of notice was admitted. It was also stated by the defendant that on the first date of hearing the entire rent and other amount required under law were deposited. It was categorically stated that the provisions of Act XIII of 1972 are applicable to the shop in question. Lastly, it was contended that the plaintiff (Opposite -parties) are not entitled to recovery water -tax and drainage charges as included in the rent and the assessment is also not made.
(3.) THE trial court on the basis of the evidence and the material on record decreed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent etc. etc. - - vide its judgment and order dated 31.1.89, thus giving rise to this revision.;