The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and complying with statutory provisions regarding rent payment and termination of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2020 passed by Judge, SCC/1st Addl. District Judge, Haldwani in SCC Suit No.12 of 2017, whereby the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for a decree of ejectment and recovery of rent and damages has been allowed against the revisionist/defendant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed SCC suit against the revisionist/defendant seeking a decree of ejectment and recovery of rent and damages on the ground of non payment of rent stating inter alia that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the premises in question which is under the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant @ Rs2200/- per month apart from the electricity charges; that, the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) do not apply to the shop in question; that, the respondent/plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant vide a notice dated 27.12.2016 issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter to be referred as the T.P. Act) on the next date following the expiry of 30 days from the service of the notice and demanded the vacant possession of the aforesaid shop; that the said notice dated 27.12.2016 was duly served on the revisionist/defendant on 04.01.2017 and as such the tenancy came to an end on 03.02.2017; that, the revisionist/defendant have been in arrears of rent also since November 2015 and a sum of Rs.30,800/- was also due till 31.12.2016.

3. The revisionist/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. In additional pleas, the revisionist/defendant contended that he is not the tenant in the disputed shop and an agreement to sell dated 23.09.2014 was executed between the parties with regard to purchase of shop and that the consideration amount has been paid to the respondent/plaintiff for purchase of shop. He further stated that in order to avoid the execution of the sale deed in his favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell the respondent/plaintiff has instituted the present suit on false facts showing revisionist/defendant to be a tenant @ 2200/- per month whereas the revisionist/defendant was inducted as tenant @ 300/- per month and there was no increase of rent thereafter. He specifically contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent/plaintiff and revisionist/defendant.

4. On the exchange of pleading of the parties, Judge, SCC framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent/plaintiff and revisionist/defendant?

(ii) Whether rate of rent of the disputed shop is Rs.2200/- per month and the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are applicable to the disputed shop?

(iii) Whether the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant has been terminated vide notice dated 27.12.2016 issued u/s 106 of T.P. Act?

(iv) Whether the revisionist/defendant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972?

(v) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get the relief claimed for?

5. Thereafter, the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of evidence of parties and other material adduced before it, trial court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff vide its judgment dated 23.01.2020. The trial court decided issue no.1 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and recorded a finding that the revisionist/defendant is tenant in the disputed shop and the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent /plaintiff stands proved. Issue no.2 regarding rate of rent was decided against the respondent/plaintiff and it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff has not led any evidence so as to substantiate her claim that the rate of rent of the disputed shop is ` 2200/- per month and thus on the basis of eviden