The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The revisionist before this Court in this SCC Revision No. 5 of 2020, is a defendant in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2015, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Subhash Negi.

2. The commencement of the proceedings of the SCC Suit, at the behest of the plaintiff/respondent, was as a consequence of the issuance of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was issued by the plaintiff/respondent to the defendant/revisionist on 8th December, 2014, directing the defendant/revisionist to vacate the premises, i.e. the disputed shop, in question, over which, admittedly, as per the pleadings raised in the plaint, the tenancy in favour of the defendant/revisionist was created in 1991. Admittedly, there existed relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. The plaintiff/respondent, on the basis of the fact, that when despite of the expiry of time period provided in the notice, the tenement was not vacated, he had instituted the Suit for grant of decree of eviction on 15th May, 2015. On this Suit, the notices were issued to the defendant/revisionist, herein, and in reply to it, he has filed his written statement being, paper No. 15Ga, where primarily his contention to challenge the notice, as well as the proceedings itself, was drawn on its basis, was on the premise that the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972, would be applicable, and hence, the argument of revisionist was that the proceedings under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, would not apply; was primarily based on the argument extended, to the extent that :-

i. the rent of the premises admittedly, which was Rs.1800/-, apart from the water and house taxes, which were payable on it, i.e. @ of about Rs.400/- p.m., and after including the same, the cut off rent of Rs. 2000/-, which has been provided under the Act No. 13 of 1972, would be exempting the applicability of the Act, in relation to those tenements, which were carrying the rent above Rs.2000/-. The submission placed by the defendant/revisionist, was that since the rent plus taxes, will fall to be within the ambit of a rent as defined under Section 7 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, his contention was that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972, would be applicable, because the rent exclusively of Rs.1800/- should be taken into consideration and the taxes would be in exclusion to it.

4. In para 11 of the written statement, the defendant/revisionist had taken a stand that since the tenement, in question, being an old construction of 1972-73, coupled with the fact that since it carries a rent of Rs.1800/- p.m., the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972, would be applicable and hence, the Suit itself would not be maintainable.

5. On the basis of the pleadings which were exchanged, between the parties, the learned Court of District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, had formulated the points of determination on 2nd June, 2016, which were to the following effect :-

"(1) Whether the defendant is tenant in the disputed shop @ Rs.2200/- p.m. including sewerage and water tax ?

(2) Whether plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 8.12.2014 and notice is duly served upon him. If so, its effect ?

(3) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted on the basis of notice dated 8.12.2014 ?

(4) Whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13/1972 are applicable in the disputed shop ?

(5) Relief, if any ?"

6. The parties to the proceedings before the Court, in support of their respective contentions, particularly, the plaintiff/respondent, has taken a stand that as far as notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act, was served on the defendant on 8th December, 2014, and hence, that would amount, to be a cut off for termination of tenancy and since it was not vacated within the time specified therein the notice, hence, the plaintiff/revisionist supported the proceeding accordingly.

7. On the other hand, the defendant case was that since the rent of the tenement was Rs.1,800/-, as per