The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the requirement to frame points for determination, and the procedure for settlement of issues in Small Causes Court.

MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

1. This is tenant’s revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/IV Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C. Case No. 20 of 2003.

2. Sri Madho Ram Sharma (landlord) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant (Sri Kalyan Singh) before the Judge, Small Cause Court, which was registered as S.C.C. Case No. 20 of 2003.

3. In the plaint, it was inter alia pleaded that Sri Kalyan Singh was a tenant in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 situated in 78 Aaraghar, Dehradun at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month; he has defaulted in payment of rent since October, 2002; the shop in question was constructed in the year 1990, therefore, provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable and landlord had sent a notice for terminating the tenancy on 29.04.2003, which was served upon the defendant/tenant on 30.04.2003.

4. A written statement was filed by the tenant (Sri Kalyan Singh) stating that originally rent for the two shops was Rs.700/- per month, which was later enhanced to Rs.1400/- per month. The tenant further contended that he had paid Rs.90,000/- as advance to the landlord in the year 1990 and thereafter, in the year 1995 again, he demanded Rs. 40,000/-, which was paid in cash to the landlord. It was further pleaded by the tenant that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1985 and ten years thereafter, provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 became applicable to the shop in question, in the year 1995. He denied receipt of notice by stating that the envelope which he received, contained blank papers and further that he has paid the entire rent up to October, 2003 in cash to the landlord, however, receipt regarding such rent was not issued to him.

5. Based on pleadings of parties, learned Trial Court framed as many as seven points for determination (hereinafter referred to as “points”), which are as follows:-

(i) Whether landlord - tenant relationship exists between plaintiff and the defendant?

(ii) Whether defendant defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff, if yes, then its effect?

(iii) Whether plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 29.04.2003?

(iv) Whether provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are attracted to the case particularly in view of proviso to Section 2 thereof, in respect of buildings constructed on or after 26.04.1985?

(v) Whether the notice dated 29.04.2003 was validly served upon the defendant? If not, its effect.

(vi) Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages, both pendatalite and future from the defendant?

(vii) Relief.

6. Learned Trial Court considered point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together and regarding point No.1 held that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between plaintiff and defendant. Regarding point No.2, it was held that there is no evidence on record to show that defendant has paid rent from October, 2002 to 30.05.2003. Regarding point No.3, learned Trial Court held that the tenancy was terminated by a notice, which was sent on 29.04.2003. Point No.4 was considered in detail by learned Trial Court and after considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Mundri Lal Vs. Smt. Sushila Rani and Another, learned Trial Court held that that provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the case. Regarding point No.5, learned Trial Court held that notice was validly served upon the tenant (defendant).

7. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31.01.2014 and defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the plaintiff within 30 days and it was further provided that defendant shall pay rent from October, 2002 till date of decision, at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month. In case of default in vacating the shops within stipulated period, tenant was made liable to pay Rs.2000/- per month as damages.

8. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the