Revisionist v. Anand Singh Mahara

suit has direct ed t he revisionist- defendant t o vacat e t he 1 t enant ed propert y- in- quest ion and handover t he peaceful possession of t he said propert y t o t he plaint iff wit hin a period of t hree m ont hs from t he dat e of t he j udgm ent . The defendant has been furt her direct ed t o pay dam ages at t he rat e of Rs. 3,000/ - per m ont h from

09.05.2015 t ill t he act ual delivery of possession of t he propert y. 2 . The case of t he respondent - plaint iff is t hat he is t he owner and landlord of t he shop and godown of Building No. 586, sit uat ed at Purana Bazar, Dist rict Pit horagarh. The defendant was t he t enant of t he plaint iff in t he suit propert y at t he rat e of Rs. 3,000/ - per m ont h. I n spit e of repeat ed dem ands, rent was not paid by t he defendant since 01.10.2014 t o 31.03.2015. A not ice dat ed 02.03.2015 was sent t o t he defendant dem anding arrears of rent and t o vacat e t he suit propert y. The defendant did not reply. Since

01.10.2014 t o 31.03.2015 arrears of rent were not paid by t he defendant , a not ice dat ed 01.04.2015 was sent t o t he defendant dem anding arrears of rent and possession of t he suit propert y. The not ice was received by t he defendant . The defendant replied t hrough his Advocat e on 10.04.2015, in which, it was st at ed t hat t he defendant has paid arrears of rent t o t he plaint iff in 2 his account , opened in t he St at e Bank of I ndia. Since t he possession of t he suit propert y was not handed over t o t he plaint iff and out st anding am ount s were not paid, t he said suit was filed. 3 . The revisionist- defendant filed his writ t en st at em ent before t he t rial court . He has st at ed in his writ t en st at em ent t hat t he propert y in- quest ion was running on rent last 60 years and rent was enhanced t im e and again and at present , he is paying Rs. 3,000/ - per m ont h as rent . He paid rent by cash or by cheque or deposit ed in t he bank. He sent rent t hrough regist ered let t ers for t he m ont h of April t o July, 2013, for t he m ont h of August , Sept em ber, Oct ober and Novem ber, 2013, for t he m ont h of Decem ber, 2013 and for t he m ont h of January, February, March, April, May, June, and July t o Sept em ber, 2014. The rent was received by t he plaint iff t hrough cheques, sent by t he regist ered let t ers. The plaint iff refused t o receive rent aft er t he m ont h of Oct ober, 2014, t herefore, rent was deposit ed in t he St at e Bank of I ndia. A suit was filed by t he plaint iff, which was num bered as R.C.C. Case No. 02 of 2013, “Anand Singh Mahara vs. Jogendra Arora”. The said case was dism issed on 26.08.2014. Therefore, t he plaint iff is not ent it led t o file t he present Suit 3 against t he defendant . 4 . The t rial court has fram ed t he following point s for det erm inat ion: - “ ( i) Whet her plaint iff was in arrear of Rs. 18,000/ - of rent in respect t o shop in- quest ion since 01.10.2014? if yes, it s effect . ( ii) Whet her vide not ice 9C dat ed 01.04.2015, issued on behalf of t he plaint iff, t enancy of defendant was t erm inat ed soon aft er 30 days of receiving of above not ice? I f yes, it s effect . ( iii) Whet her t he Rent Cont rol Case No. 02 of 2013, “Anand Singh Mahra vs. Jogendra Arora” was rej ect ed as st at ed by t he defendant ? I f yes, it s effect . ( iv) Whet her plaint iff is ent it led t o any relief claim ed?” 5 . The plaint iff had filed a copy of regist ered not ice dat ed 01.04.2015 wit h acknowledgm ent , issued by t he Advocat e of t he plaint iff t o defendant and reply t o t he said quit not ice. 6 . The revisionist- defendant had filed phot ocopy of bank deposit ed slips, regist ered envelops wit h acknowledgem ent , a let t er for sending rent wit h 4 cheque, regist ry receipt , carbon copy of let t er wit h regist ry receipt , let t er dat ed 07.11.2014 wit h regist ry receipt , regist ered envelope wit h AD and bank deposit ed slips in his evidence. 7 . The respondent- plaint iff exam ined him self before t he t rial court 8 . The revisionist- defendant exam ined him self as DW1 and one wit ness Chanchal Singh Chauhan, DW2. 9 . The learned t rial court has decided t he point for det erm inat ion no. 1 against t he plaint iff and point for det erm inat ion no. 2 in favour of t he plaint iff. The t rial court has held t hat t he order dat ed 26.08.2014, passed in RCC Case No.02 of 2013, “Anand Singh vs. Jogendra Arora” does not operat e as res j udicat a in t he present m at t er. Accordingly, t he point for det erm inat ion no.3 has been disposed of. 1 0 . Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocat e assist ed by Mr. Suryakant Mait hani, learned counsel for t he revisionist and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocat e assist ed by Mr. Tushar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for t he respondent s. 1 1 . The respondent no.1 ( now deceased, t he 5 original plaint iff ) was t he landlord of t he property- in- quest ion and t he revisionist- defendant was t he t enant of t he propert y. The plaint iff served upon t he defendant a not ice dat ed 01.04.2015 t o quit . But , t he defendant did not vacat e t he propert y. The plaint iff, t herefore, filed t he said SCC suit . 1 2 . Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocat e cont ended t hat t he sole ground was t aken in t he said quit not ice t hat t he t enant com m it t ed default in paying t he rent for t he period from 01.10.2014 t o

31.03.2015, but t he plaint iff has failed t o prove t he sam e, hence, t he suit , filed by t he plaint iff, ought t o have been dism issed by t he t rial court . 1 3 . This fact is not disput ed bet ween t he part ies t hat t he Ut t ar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972 ( in short , “Act , 1972” ) ( as applicable in t he St at e of Ut t arakhand) is not applicable in t he present m at t er. 1 4 . Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocat e appearing for t he respondent – plaint iff, on t he ot her hand, cont ended t hat as t he provisions of t he Act , 1972 did not apply t o t he propert y- in- disput e, it was open t o t he plaint iff t o t erm inat e t he 6 t enancy of t he defendant . 1 5 . The quit not ice dat ed 01.04.2015 was given t o t he defendant which was fully legal and valid and if t he Act , 1972 is not applicable, t hen suit for evict ion is liable t o be decreed aft er t erm inat ion t enancy w it hout t here being any default paym ent of rent or any ot her ground. Therefore, for t erm inat ion of t enancy, it is not necessary t hat t he t enant m ust be default er. 1 6 . The m at erial port ion of t he quit not ice dat ed 01.04.2015 is being quot ed hereunder : - The plaint iff sent not ice t o t he defendant calling upon him t o pay t he rent of t he propert y in his t enancy w it h effect from

01.10.2014 t o 31.03.2015 w it hin t hirt y days of t he receipt of t he said not ice and t o vacat e t he propert y in his t enancy on t he expiry of t hirt y days next aft er t he receipt of t he said not ice. Thereaft er, his t enancy shall st and det erm ined. 1 7 . Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocat e appearing for t he revisionist – defendant 7 invit ed at t ent ion on t he relief of t he plaint where t he plaint iff has claim ed from 01.10.2014 t o

09.05.2015. Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocat e cont ended t hat in t he light of t he said relief, it is clear t hat t he plaint iff had waived t he quit not ice dat ed 01.04.2015. 1 8 . The quit not ice dat ed 01.10.2014 is very clear of t he int ent ion of t he plaint iff t hat he did not want t o keep t he defendant as his t enant and t he t enancy shall st and det erm ined on t he expiry of t he period of t hirt y days from t he dat e of t he service of t he not ice. 1 9 . No ot her point has been raised on behalf of t he revisionist . 2 0 . This Court is of t he considered view t hat t he learned t rial court is well j ust ified in passing t he im pugned j udgm ent and decree. I do not find any illegalit y or infirm it y in t he im pugned j udgm ent and decree dat ed 28.09.2016. 2 1 . Consequent ly, t he Civil Revision ( CLR No.141 of 2016) st ands dism issed wit h cost s t hroughout . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK K UM A R VERM A , J. Dat e: 10.06.2025 JKJ/ Pant 8