The tenant has the burden of proof regarding rent payment, and the landlord has the right to seek eviction for non-payment of rent, as per the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

By means of this revision, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 rendered by the Judge, Small Cause Courts/Additional District Judge, Haridwar, whereby the Suit No.02 of 2011, instituted by Smt. Rekha Sharma, was decreed against Ish Kumar @ Harish Kumar (revisionist).

2. The disputed property is a small house which was previously owned by Mr. Prem Chand Sharma, grandfather of Mr. Saurav Sharma and Mr. Sameer Sharma. Revisionist Ish Kumar was a tenant in second floor of this house since long back and Mr. Prem Chand Sharma used to collect rent thereof through his power of attorney holder Mr. Narendra Goswami, who was a very close relative of Mr. Sharma. The attitude of Mr. Ish Kumar of not paying the rent within time became the prime cause for the brothers duo, as afore-named, to sell this property on 1.11.2008 in favour of Smt. Rekha Sharma. Thus, she became the owner-cum-landlady of this property which is admitted to the parties. The fact which is also not in dispute is that the building, in question, is not exempted from the application of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘the Act’).

3. This approach of tenant-Ish Kumar persisted with the new owner-cum-landlady as well, as he continued in making defaults of payment of rent for a long time, so the notice was issued to him by Smt. Rekha Sharma on 2.11.2009, thereby terminating the tenancy, which was served upon him on 10.11.2009. But when the tenant neither paid the rent due against him nor did he vacate the questioned property, so Smt. Rekha Sharma was constrained to file the Small Cause Suit No.02 of 2011, thereby seeking the eviction of the tenant/defendant from the premises, in dispute. No sooner did the revisionist received notice of the said suit, he tendered the rent, with all other dues, through a money order favouring Smt. Rekha Sharma but she did not accept the same. So, the revisionist filed his written statement before the Court with all the facts, as have been stated above. After considering the oral testimony besides other documents, as brought on record by the parties in support of their contentions, learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit directing the tenant to vacate the premises, in question, within a month, from the date of rendering the judgment together with payment of rent @Rs.1,200/- per month with effect from 2.11.2008 till 24.2.2015, and further the mesne profits, at the same rate, from the date of judgment till the possession is actually delivered. It was also directed by the court below that in case of making default in making the payments, as aforesaid, the landlady would also be liable to get twelve percent annual simple interest after the due date on the entire amount of arrears.

4. According to the revisionist, the rate of rent of the disputed property, initially, was Rs.450/- per month, which was increased to Rs.600/- subsequently, but it had never been Rs.1,200/- per mensem, as averred by the landlady.

5. Before the Court below, Smt. Rekha Sharma has examined herself as PW1 besides her witnesses Saurav Sharma as PW2 and Narendra Goswami as PW3. All these witnesses have proved that the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per mensem and in order to prove their version, the original receipts, some time for the year 1999, have been produced divulging such rate of rent paid by the tenant Ish Kumar. The previous owner Mr. Saurav Sharma, who inherited this property from his grandfather Mr. Prem Chand Sharma, has also proved these receipts which are at Serial Nos.4, 5, 11, 23 and 25 in the Book meant for the purpose. It needs to be mentioned here that the receipts, at Sl. Nos.4, 5 and 11, countenances the signature of Mr. Ish Kumar, which perfectly resemble with his signatures made by him in the written statement as also in the memo of this civil revision.

6. Receipt Nos.23 and 25 bear the signatures of Smt. Geeta (W/o Ish Kum