JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed to quash the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 2001 passed by Sri R.B. Singh, Spl. Judge Anti-Corruption/A.D.J. Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 23 of 1997.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent Rukmani Devi filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages against the defendant/revisionist Dev Raj alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 29-A Sindhu Nagar, Mohalla Katra, Chand Khan Old City, Bareilly. There is a room, kitchen-cum-store room, bathroom and latrine room towards North-East on the ground floor of the house in which the defendant is a tenant since 15th February, 1995 @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. He is also responsible for paying the electric bill and local taxes. The tenancy starts from 15th of every month. The defendant after 15th May 1996 has not paid rent, mesne profits, electric bill and local taxes after 15th May, 1996. The plaintiff is a little educated lady and has a little knowledge of law. She used to deliver receipts pasting revenue tickets on blank papers. She never prepared any copy or counter foil of it. Therefore, she had not taken signatures of the defendant on any counter foil of receipts. After 15th May, 1996, the plaintiff had demanded several times the rent, mesne profits and amount of electric bill and local taxes but defendant ignored and has not paid the same and started un-parliamentary behaviour and abusing. Therefore, she sent a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on 06th January 1997 reduced in writing by her Advocate, Raj Kumar Agrawal. It was delivered to the defendant same day as dasti notice but defendant refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff pasted the notice upon the main door and terminated the tenancy of the defendant.

3. The defendant had filed a Suit No. 37 of 1996 Dev Raj vs. Rukmani Devi and Others and moved temporary injunction application. The plaintiff had filed objection and counter objection and also copy of notice dated 06th January, 1997 as Schedule-A and copy of affidavit was also provided to the counsel of the defendant. Thus, the defendant had full knowledge of the notice. In spite of that neither the defendant vacated the tenanted part of the house nor provided the possession nor paid any rent, mesne profit, electric bill amount and local taxes due upon him. In Para 6 of the suit, the plaintiff has given the details of the amount. In Para 8 of the plaint she has valued the suit and has stated about the court fees and thereafter, has sought the relief.

4. The copy of the written statement has been annexed as Annexure 2 in which the petitioner has said that provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable to the property in suit. He admitted to be the tenant and also admitted filing of the suit. In addition to that he replied that the suit is not property valued and insufficient court fees has been paid. The property in suit is very old. The rear portion of the house was made in 1973. When the tenancy started, the house in suit was under the operation of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The plaintiff did not adopted the procedure of allotment which was necessary. Therefore, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is against the law and void, and is not enforceable. The defendant has not received any notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. The defendant is tenant @ Rs. 500 per month in which taxes of water and electric charges are also included. The defendant has been paying the rent to the plaintiff but plaintiff had never given receipt. The plaintiff had taken Rs. 20,000/- cash for the construction of kitchen with the condition that this amount would be set off in the amount of rent but the plaintiff did not construct the kitchen and got it lingered. The plaintiff again started demanding Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant is a poor, gentle and peace loving person who any how passes the life. When he refused to pay this amount, the plaintiff became angry a