RAJNISH KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7th March, 2000, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court in suit No. 56 of 1996, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'9' to the writ petition, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the defendant-tenant, petitioner in the present writ petition, was directed to vacate the accommodation in question, which is a shop, within one month and also to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court filed a revision before the revisional Court. The revisional Court maintained the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant vide its order dated 10th September, 2004, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'10' to the writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Manoj Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The facts of the filing of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit being suit No. 56 of 1996 for ejectment and the arrears of rent against the petitioner-tenant from the accommodation in question i.e. 4/316-B situated at Mohalla Jogian, Saharanpur on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the shop in question and he had let out the shop in question to the tenant-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. It is further alleged by the landlord that the accommodation in question was a new construction and was assessed for the first time by the Municipal Board concern in the year 1986, as such the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act') are not applicable. The present suit has been filed by the respondent-landlord after serving notice dated 19th March, 1996, through his Advocate. The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement denying all the allegations, made in the plaint with the submission that the plaintiff-respondent has incorrectly stated that the petitioner is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, but in fact the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month and that since the building in which the shop in question is situated is old building therefore, the same is covered by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-landlord never issued the receipts for rent paid, it is incorrect to say that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent.