Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

Heard Sri Gopal Narain, counsel for the State and Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mamta Joshi, counsel for the revisionists.

2. By the present civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 31st May, 2006 by which the decree for eviction as well payment of arrears within a period of two months have been granted.

3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed being S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2002 Smt. Pramod Mishra Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others stating therein that the plaintiff is the landlord of the premises and the defendant No. 2 - Rajkiya Pramanit Sanstha (Bhikhuk Grah) Bhimgoda Haridwar is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 375 per month and the defendant no. 2 is under the supervision of the State of Uttaranchal.

4. The plaintiff-respondent has stated that the defendant no. 2 - revisionist no. 2 is in arrears of rent from 1st April, 1997 to 31st July, 2003 amounting to Rs. 28,500/- and water and house tax at the rate of Rs. 4,987.50n. Apart from the aforesaid arrears of rent, it was also stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the defendant no. 2 has also made substantial additions and alterations in building by demolishing the railing and has constructed the permanent structure as a result of the same, the windows have been removed and the electric fittings have also been taken out from the premises. The defendant no. 2 has also constructed a latrine illegally by which the entire premises has been disfigured which has also diminished the vale of the building.

5. Plaintiff has submitted that a notice was sent on 1st August, 2003 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was duly served on 1st October, 2003 demanding the arrears of rent of the following effect:

ß¼v½ ;g fd fMxzh n[ky cgd oknuh cj f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lfnj Qjek;h tkdj oknuh dks fuEof.kZr lEifÙk dk n[ky izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¼c½ ;g fd fMxzh fdjk;k vadu 28915@& #ñ 50 iSls o tydj x`gdj 5004@& #ñ 50 iSls dqy 33919@& #ñ 50 iSls oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¼l½ ;g fd eqvkotk bLrseky 375@& #ñ oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¼n½ ;g fd [kpkZ oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¼;½ ;g fd eqvkotk bLrseky nkSjku oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls rk;se n[ky fnyk;k tkos ftl ij dksVZQhl cjc[r vtjk;s vnk dh tk;sxhAÞ

6. The defendant no.2 has contested the case by filing a written statement. So far as the tenancy is concerned, the same was admitted by the defendant no. 2. However, it was denied that any construction has been raised by the defendant so as to cover the case under Section 20(c) and (g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. Judge Small Cause Courts has framed as many as four points for determination. While deciding the point no. 1, a finding was recorded on the basis of the evidence of the parties that the defendant no. 2 has made substantial additions and alterations in the building. So far as the point no. 4 regarding the arrears of rent is concerned, a finding has been recorded that since 1996, the defendant no. 2 has not paid the rent to the plaintiff and even after the receipt of the notice, the amount was not paid to the plaintiff and hence the decree for eviction was passed against the defendant no. 2. So far as other points with regard to the notice is concerned, a finding was recorded that the proper notice has been sent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, I find no fault in sending the notice to the defendant no. 2.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has stated that the defendant has not paid the rent from 01.04.1997 to 31.07.2003.

9. In paragraph 14 of the written statement, it has been stated that the rent was being paid to the husband of the plaintiff. Relevant portion of the written statement is quoted below:

ß14- ;g fd okfnuh us Lo;a dks foofnr lEif