Advocates:
['VINODANAND BARTHWAL', '', 'VIJAY LAXMI', 'M K RAY', '', 'M S BHANDARI']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Civil Revision No. 87 of 2018

Karamveer Singh Rajput

…

Revisionist

Vs.

Virendra Singh Tomar

…

Respondent

Advocate:

Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, Advocate, for the revisionist

Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

On 16th April 2015, a Suit, being Suit No. 5 of 2015,

Virendra Singh Tomar Vs. Karamveer Singh Rajput, was

instituted by the landlord/respondent herein, invoking the

provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts

Act, 1887, praying for vacation of the tenement shop, which

has been described therein, in the plaint, the tenancy of

which, has been terminated by the landlord/respondent, by

issuance of the Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882, as it was issued on 12th March 2013,

which

has

been

admittedly

served

upon

the

tenant/revisionist herein on 13th March 2013.

2.

The proceedings of SCC Suit, as instituted on 16th April

2015, was contested by the revisionist by filing a written

statement, and in the written statement thus filed on 17th

August 2015, the ground taken therein by the revisionist was

to the effect that the so-called need, which has been

expressed by the landlord/respondent in his plaint under

Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for

2

engaging his son, who was alleged to be working as Junior

Engineer, working on contractual basis in the Public Works

Department, he submits, that the said need, as expressed by

the landlord/respondent in the proceedings under Section

15, since not being bonafide, it will not be treated that the

landlord/respondent, had approached the Court with clean

hands, by filing a proceeding under Section 15 of the

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the reason being, that

there existed no bonafide need, owing to the engagement of

the landlord’s son as pleaded in para 3 of the written

statement.

3.

On exchange of the pleadings, learned trial Court has

framed the following issues:-

“1.

Whether the rent of disputed shop is Rs. 2000/- p.m. as

alleged by the plaintiff or Rs. 1200/- p.m. as alleged by

the defendant?

2.

Whether plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the

defendant vide notice dated 12.3.2013? If so, its effect?

3.

Whether notice dated 12.3.2013 is illegal, as alleged by

the defendant?

4.

Relief, if any?”

4.

In fact, the prime issue, which would be of

consideration was the exercise of powers by the

landlord/respondent of terminating a tenancy; by issuance

of notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In fact, the notice, which was issued on 12th March 2013,

was a simplicitor termination of the tenancy, from the

3

disputed shop, which has been sought to be construed by

the learned counsel for the revisionist, as if since the

landlord/respondent, has given an expression in the

application or even as well as in the notice, that he has to

engage his son, is a misnomer, because according to the

revisionist, the son of the landlord/respondent was already

engaged with the Public Works Department. Hence, the

learned counsel for the revisionist contends, that since the

landlord /respondent, has not come up with clean hands,

the plaint ought not to have been decreed by the learned

Provincial Small Cause Courts.

5.

The language of Section 15 of the Provincial Small

Cause Courts Act, under which the proceedings were drawn,

it only contemplates that on an issuance of notice of

terminating the tenancy. It doesn't, at any stage, either by

virtue of U.P. Amendment which was carried and made

applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as a consequence of

its adoption under Section 87 of the Reorganization Act. The

proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 15, as it was applicable

in the State of Uttar Pradesh, now in the State of

Uttarakhand too also, it only contemplates an eviction of a

lessee from a buil