IMPORTANT POINT
‘Residential building’ in Proviso to section 20(4) does not exclude residential-cum-commercial building.

Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.12.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 8 of 1990 whereby the revision filed by the defendant No.1 is allowed, and order of eviction against the tenants passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut, is set aside.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1/appellant is owner and landlord of house bearing municipal no. 831 (old no. 446), situated in Mowana, District Meerut. The house was let out to Nawab Singh (father of the respondents) and a rent note (Annexure P-2) was executed on 15.02.1975. The building under lease consists of ground floor used for commercial purposes and the first floor for the residential purpose. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants stopped payment of rent of the building, after August, 1981. Consequently, a notice on 16.08.1982 was served on the defendants, and when they failed to pay rent within one month of service of notice, a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiffs before Judge, Small Causes Court/District Judge, Meerut.

4. Only defendant no.1 (respondent before us) contested the suit and filed written statement. It is admitted that the plaintiff/appellant is the landlord of the house in question. It is also admitted that property was let out to Nawab Singh, father of answering defendant, on rent at the rate of Rs.440/- per month. However, it is denied that there was any default in payment of rent, on the part of the defendants. It is stated that no notice of demand of arrears of rent and termination of the tenancy was served on the defendants. In the additional pleas, the answering respondent has stated that the rate of rent was only Rs. 200/-per month which was paid up to December, 1981 to Kishan Pal Singh (father of plaintiff no.1). It is further pleaded that thereafter, the rent was not accepted by the landlord. It is pleaded that answering defendant tendered amount of Rs. 20,000/-before the trial court in May, 1984 which included arrears of rent, nine percent interest and costs. As such, in view of the provision contained in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short “U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972”), the defendants are protected from the decree of eviction, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial court framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-

“1. Whether defendants are in arrears of rent from 01.09.1981 and have committed default?

2. Whether rate of rent is Rs.440/-per month as alleged by the plaintiff or is Rs.200/-per month as alleged by the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff has served valid notice upon the defendants u/s 106 Transfer of Property Act?

4. Whether defendant is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972?

5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?”

6. The parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. After hearing the parties, all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the suit was decreed for ejectment of the defendants from accommodation in question, and also for arrears of rent amounting Rs.5,632/- and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.440/- per month till dispossession of the defendants. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 06.12.1989, passed in SCC Suit No. 5 of 1983 by Judge, Small Causes Court/Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut, Civil Revision was filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 which was allowed by the High Court vide impugned order, challenged before us, in this appeal.

7. The High Court has not disturbed the findings of trial court on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The High Court has observed in its order that the defendants have