Kaleem vs Chhotey Lal

Rajes Kumar, J.—The present revision is directed against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Farrukhabad, dated 2.9.2009 by which the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed and the applicant has been directed to evict the shop in dispute within a period of two months. It has been further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000 towards arrears of rent and Rs. 1,500 per month towards damages.

The brief facts of the case are that the shop in dispute has been let out to the applicant for the period from 4.1.2004 to 5.1.2006, in respect of which a rent agreement has also been executed, in which the rent fixed was Rs. 1,200 per month. It appears that the applicant has paid the rent upto December, 2006 and stopped making payment of rent from January, 2007. The respondent-landlord issued a notice dated 30.8.2007 terminating the tenancy and asking the applicant to evict the shop in dispute and to pay the arrears of rent and also damages. However, when the premises was not vacated within 30 days, Suit No. 6 of s2007 was filed. The suit was contested by the applicant on the ground that the rent was not Rs. 1,200 but Rs. 100 per month ; when the landlord refused to accept the rent, the same was deposited u/s 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ; in a blank stamp paper his signature has been obtained and the rent deed has been subsequently prepared ; the rent deed was not admissible as the period of tenancy was more than one year and it should be registered u/s 17 of the Registration Act. The trial court has decreed the suit and has held that as per rent agreement the rent was Rs. 1,200 per month. It was agreed between the parties that after expiry of the period of agreement the premises shall be vacated. The rent was not paid as agreed and, therefore, the applicant was in arrears of rent. It was also held that by the notice dated 30.8.2007 the tenancy has been terminated and since the premises has not been vacated within 30 days, the cause of action arose after expiry of 30 days. On these facts, he directed the eviction of the applicant.

Heard Sri M.A. Qadir, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the landlord has earlier issued the notice dated 26.7.2007 asking the applicant to evict the shop. He submitted that the notice dated 30.8.2007 has not been filed. He further submitted that there is no finding that the tenancy has been terminated by the notice dated 30.8.2007. He further submitted that the rent was Rs. 100 per month and not Rs. 1,200 per month and the same was deposited u/s 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the refusal by the landlord, and therefore, there was no default on the part of the applicant. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of R.S. Negi Vs. Vishnu Sahai Verma and Another, and the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Pushpawati (D.) through L.Rs., wherein it has been held that by the notice the tenancy must be terminated.

I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and the documents filed alongwith the revision. It is not in dispute that the shop in dispute was let out for the period from 4.1.2004 to 5.1.2006, which has been expired. The signature on the rent agreement is not in dispute. The rent agreement clearly stipulates the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month. Therefore, it could not be believed that the rent was Rs. 100 per month and not Rs. 1,200 per month, which has been clearly stipulated in the rent agreement. No contrary evidence has been adduced to show that the rent was Rs. 100 per month. Therefore, the finding of the court below that the rent was Rs. 1,200 per month cannot be said to be wrong, perverse and based on no material. A perusal of the impugned order shows that at no stage it has been disputed that the copy of the notice dated 30.8.2007 has not been filed and, therefore, this plea cannot be accepted at this stage. The copy of the notice dated 30.8.2007 has not been filed alongwith the revision petition. The court below has categorically recorded a finding that the applicant has not paid the rent from January, 2007 to October, 2007 at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month and by the notice the tenancy has been terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that by the notice the tenancy has not been terminated. The court below has recorded a categorical finding in this effect. Admittedly, the rent has not been paid at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month and, therefore, the applicant was in default in payment of rent. From the facts and circumstances the court below has rightly decreed the suit and directed eviction of the applicant.

I do not see any error in the order. The revision is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. In case if the applicant has not vacated the premises till date, he is directed to vacate the premises and pay the amount as directed in the impugned order within a period of six weeks.