JUDGEMENT
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA,J. -
(1.)The revisionist/tenant has approached this Court, exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section'25'of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, whereby he has questioned the impugned judgment, as had been rendered, by the court of 4th Additional District Judge/Judge, SCC on 22.05.2013, by virtue of which, the SCC suit no. 05 of 2003, as was preferred by the landlord/respondent was decreed, and as a consequence thereto, the effect of the judgment and decree, was that the revisionist was directed to vacate the disputed premises and to handover the vacant and peaceful possession, along with the arrears of rent and the damages at the rate as directed therein in the judgment of 22.05.2013.
(2.)The brief facts, which emerges for consideration in the present SCC revision are that the landlord is shown to have issued a notices under Section'106'of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, whereby the landlord had expressed her intention of terminating the tenancy of the revisionist/tenant from the tenement in question, which constitutes to be the part of and the portion of the property, which was then bearing municipal no. 156-B, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. In response to the notice, which was sent by the landlord, thereby terminating the tenancy, a reply was submitted by the revisionist, through his counsel, denying the contents of the notice on the pretext that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; are not applicable over the tenement in question, on the premise that since the rent itself, which the tenement carried, is'Rs. 2,000/- per month.
(3.)The proceedings before the Judge, SCC, after service of notice, was taken up by the learned court of 5th Additional District Judge, and on considering the written statement as was filed by the defendant/revisionist, herein i.e. paper no. 27-C, wherein according to the pleadings, raised therein and which has been dealt with, by the learned trial court, it was observed that the rent of the tenement was'Rs. 2,500/- per month apart from taxes and other municipal dues which were payable on it, which were in exclusion of the rent which was due to be paid towards the tenement in question. This fact also stands substantiated from the response which was filed by the revisionist/defendant, to the notice wherein the taxes'were observed to be, apart from the rent, which was settled to be paid for the tenement in question.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.