9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 118 - HC - Indian LawsDefault in payment of rent - case of the defendant-tenant was that the address on the notice was incomplete, and that the seal affixed on the acknowledgment receipt was that of Alok Cassettes Centre whereas the address of the defendant-tenant was mentioned as Alok Music Centre in the body of the plaint, hence it was asserted that notice could not have been held to have been legally served - HELD THAT - Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887. Revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tenant has defaulted payment of rent? 2. Whether the tenant has defaulted payment of house tax and water tax? 3. Whether the landlord is entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant? 4. Whether the notice regarding demand of rent and termination of tenancy is properly served on the tenant? 5. Whether the tenant had deposited ?74,000 as advance rent with the landlord? 6. To which relief is the landlord entitled? Detailed Analysis: 1. Default in Payment of Rent: The trial court determined that the tenancy was on a month-to-month basis, with the rent being ?1000 per month, exclusive of house tax and water tax. The tenant's claim of having paid an advance of ?1,00,000 to be adjusted from the rent was not substantiated by any written agreement or reliable witness. The tenant failed to provide any rent receipts for the period from December 2000 to the date of the notice. Consequently, the court held that the tenant was in arrears of rent from December 2000 until the notice date. 2. Default in Payment of House Tax and Water Tax: The trial court found that the tenant had defaulted in paying house tax and water tax. The tenant's claim that these taxes were included in the rent was not supported by evidence. The court concluded that the tenant was liable for these payments, as there was no assessment indicating otherwise. 3. Entitlement to Decree of Eviction: Given the tenant's default in rent payment and failure to prove that the advance payment was to be adjusted against the rent, the trial court found the landlord entitled to a decree of eviction. The tenant did not tender or deposit the arrears of rent and taxes under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, further justifying the eviction. 4. Proper Service of Notice: The landlord provided evidence that the notice dated 06.03.2002 was served on the tenant at his shop address on 08.03.2002. The acknowledgment receipt bearing the tenant's signature was submitted. The tenant's denial of receiving the notice was deemed insufficient to rebut the presumption of service. The court followed the precedent that mere denial does not suffice to rebut the presumption of service when a notice is sent by registered post. 5. Advance Rent Deposit: The tenant's assertion of having deposited ?74,000 as advance rent was not proven. There was no written agreement or reliable witness to support this claim. The court held that the tenant failed to substantiate the advance payment and its intended adjustment against the rent. 6. Relief Entitlement: The trial court decreed that the landlord was entitled to receive rent at ?1000 per month from December 2000 to April 2002, along with house tax and water tax at 24% of the annual rent for the period. Additionally, the landlord was entitled to compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of the property at ?1000 per month from April 2002 until the tenant vacated the property. The decree was modified to exempt the tenant from paying house tax and water tax, as agreed by the landlord's counsel. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court's judgment, except for modifying the decree to exclude the tenant's liability for house tax and water tax. The tenant's failure to prove advance payment and default in rent payment justified the eviction and the landlord's entitlement to the specified reliefs. The service of notice was deemed proper based on the evidence provided.
|
