The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the legal provisions regarding rent payment and termination of tenancy is essential, and the court has the discretion to grant a reasonable period for the tenant to vacate the premises.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The revisionist is a tenant of the premises in dispute, which is a shop, which admittedly was under the ownership of the respondent/landlord and which was the subject matter of the proceedings of the SCC Suit No.01 of 2006, Vikash Kukreti vs. Sanjay Kumar. As per the plaint averment, the shop in question is situated at village Maganpur, Post Office Kishanpur, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, having a total area of 20 x 10.7 feet, the precients of which was more appropriately described in para 1 of the plaint.

2. The landlord/respondent had specifically come up with the case, that the shop in question over which the tenancy was created, was on a month to month tenancy basis and it was carrying a rent of Rs.3,080/- per month, but on account of the fact that since August 2015, the default was committed by the tenant/revisionist in the remittance of rent, herein his tenancy was terminated by virtue of a notice which was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 08.01.2016, wherein para 4 of the said notice reads as under :-

3. If the notice Paper No.7 Ga, itself is taken into consideration, which admittedly was issued by the landlord and was served on the revisionist, it finds place on record as an exhibit Paper No.7 Ga, wherein the plea of default for the period from August, 2015 and the fact that the tenement was carrying a rent of Rs.3,080/- per month, the issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and as a consequence thereto terminating the tenancy was a fact, which was reflected from the contents of the notice itself, which finds place on record. The notice thus issued by the landlord/respondent on 08.01.2016, was denied and controverted by the revisionist by filing objection to it i.e. Paper No.9 Ga, denying the aspect pertaining to the default and if the averments itself is taken into consideration, particularly that as contained in para 3 of the reply, the case of the revisionist as pleaded was that the tenancy, which was created, was carrying a rent of Rs.2,800/- and hence the demand raised by the landlord/respondent, in the notice at the rate of Rs.3,080/- per month, was on a higher side and the notice itself was defective.

4. The revisionist/tenant had filed the written statement and in the written statement thus filed particularly, a reference, which has been made by the revisionist, during the course of argument of the present revision, is to the contents of para 15 of the written statement, where he contends that the claim of arrears of rent and the determination, which was made by the landlord/respondent in the notice and the default period as narrated therein was per-se false because the determination was made by the landlord/respondent at the rate of Rs.3,080/- per month though in fact, according to the version of the revisionist, his case was that the rent ought to have been determined at the rate of Rs.2800/- per month. He submits that in view of the fact that he had remitted the entire defaulted amount and for which he relied upon Paper No. 15 Ga i.e. the details of deposit made by him, before the Judge Small Causes Courts on 07.04.2016, he contends that he has remitted a total amount of Rs.24,250/- and hence that itself would be a sufficient and complete compliance made in the spirit of the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5, to be read with Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, and thus the termination of his tenancy, by the notice of 08.01.2016, it ought not to have been given effect, in view of the fact that on the first date of hearing he claims that he had remitted the rent before the court below.

5. In order to answer the said argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist, pertaining to the compliance of the deposits, which was to be made, for the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 if it is taken into its consideration to the extent of its applicability to the State of Uttar P