JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral). - The revisionist/tenant has approached this Court, exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, whereby he has questioned the impugned judgment, as had been rendered, by the court of 4th Additional District Judge/Judge, SCC on 22.05.2013, by virtue of which, the SCC suit no.05 of 2003, as was preferred by the landlord/respondent was decreed, and as a consequence thereto, the effect of the judgment and decree, was that the revisionist was directed to vacate the disputed premises and to handover the vacant and peaceful possession, along with the arrears of rent and the damages at the rate as directed therein in the judgment of 22.05.2013.

2. The brief facts, which emerges for consideration in the present SCC revision are that the landlord is shown to have issued a notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, whereby the landlord had expressed her intention of terminating the tenancy of the revisionist/tenant from the tenement in question, which constitutes to be the part of and the portion of the property, which was then bearing municipal no.156-B, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. In response to the notice, which was sent by the landlord, thereby terminating the tenancy, a reply was submitted by the revisionist, through his counsel, denying the contents of the notice on the pretext that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; are not applicable over the tenement in question, on the premise that since the rent itself, which the tenement carried, is c 2,000/- per month.

3. The proceedings before the Judge, SCC, after service of notice, was taken up by the learned court of 5th Additional District Judge, and on considering the written statement as was filed by the defendant/revisionist, herein i.e. paper no.27-C, wherein according to the pleadings, raised therein and which has been dealt with, by the learned trial court, it was observed that the rent of the tenement was c 2,500/- per month apart from taxes and other municipal dues which were payable on it, which were in exclusion of the rent which was due to be paid towards the tenement in question. This fact also stands substantiated from the response which was filed by the revisionist/defendant, to the notice wherein the taxes were observed to be, apart from the rent, which was settled to be paid for the tenement in question.

4. In response to the written statement paper no.27-C, the additional plea, was also raised by the revisionist/defendant with regards to the effect of receipt of the rent, which was received by the respondent/landlord on 13.09.2003 and the balance amount, as referred therein in para 16. In response to the written statement, the landlord/respondent had filed a replication i.e. paper no.29C (1-10), reiterating the fact, that the aspect pertaining to the remittance of the rent and whether it would be inclusive of the other taxes and dues, to be paid on the rent of the tenement in question for the purposes of excluding the applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, itself runs contrary to the evidence, which was placed on record by the revisionist herein, in support of his contention. The parties to the proceedings of the suit, had led their respective evidences by filing the list of documents being paper no.7Ga by the plaintiff/respondent and list of documents which were supplied by the defendant/revisionist herein; through list no.62C and 81C.

5. On exchange of pleadings, the learned trial court has framed the points of determination on 24.07.2012, which is referred to hereunder:-

(i) Whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rents and taxes as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint? If so, its effect.

(ii) Whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the property in suit? If so, its effect.

(iii) Whether the taxes are included in the rent?

(iv) Whether the notice upon the defendant was validly served? If so, then eff