Point of Law: Eviction of tenant - Unauthorized occupation of tenant - Intention and admission in pleadings indicates the creation of relationship of landlord and tenant and that the amount paid by the revisionist would be the rent in respect of the premises in question.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2019 passed in SCC Suit No. 213 of 2014 (Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal and Another vs. Vishva Gaurav Pandey) by means of which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed granting the relief of arrears of rent and ejectment by the Court of Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No. 5, Lucknow acting as Judge Small Cause Court.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant revision are as under:-

That the plaintiff-respondents instituted SCC Suit No. 213 of 2014 against Sri. Vishva Gaurav Pandey seeking a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment as well as damages for wrongful use and occupation.

3. It was pleaded that the ground floor portion comprising of 3 living rooms, hall, lobby, porch and front open space in House No. 75, Ravindra Palli, Faizabad Road, Lucknow was initially let out to Smt. Garima Pandey, the sister of the defendant. The premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- excluding electricity, water tax and other charges. It was also pleaded that with mutual consent the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 9,000/- per month.

4. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the plaint, it has been stated that the defendant (Vishva Gaurav Pandey) started tendering the cheques in his own name since January, 2013. It was later discovered that Smt. Garima Pandey after marriage had shifted elsewhere without informing the plaintiffs and during her stay she inducted her relatives including the defendant in an unauthorized manner. It was also stated that only when the cheque for the rent relating to the month of March, 2014 was dishonoured and the plaintiffs went to the premises that they realised that they had been accepting the rent from the defendant.

5. It was also pleaded that the defendant (Vishva Gaurav Pandey) had instituted a suit for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali, Lucknow on 22.04.2014 on false pretext. The plaintiff’s since were receiving the rent from the defendant, therefore, treating the defendant as the tenant and the fact that the rent was in excess of Rs. 2,000/- hence, by means of notice dated 19.08.2014 terminated the tenancy and thereafter instituted the suit against the defendant.

6. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing his written statement wherein he took the defence that he was only the tenant of one room situate on the ground floor whereas the wash room, lobby and the Angan was in common use of the defendant with other tenants. The defendant pleaded that he was a tenant of Rs. 1,600/- per month along with Rs. 100/- towards water charges, thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,700/- was paid as rent by the defendant to Dr. Sangeeta Agarwal, the plaintiff no. 1.

7. He also pleaded that the defendant was only the tenant of Dr. Sangeeta Agrawal and Dr. Atul Agarwal, the plaintiff no. 2 has been wrongly impleaded in the above suit. It was further pleaded that since the rate of rent was only Rs. 1700/- per month and the building was old, hence, it was covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Letting of Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972). The defendant also submitted that he had deposited the arrears in terms of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such was entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid provision, relieving him from the decree of ejectment.

8. Insofar as the service of composite notice of demand and ejectment dated 19.08.2014 is concerned, the same was served on the defendant, however, it was assailed on the ground that it did not relate to the portion of which the defendant was a tenant rather it related to a much larger area, hence, the notice was bad.

9. Before the Trial Court, it is only the plaintiff no. 2 Dr. Atul Agarwal who appeared as a witness whereas none appeared on behalf of the defendant nor the defendant examined h