The brief facts of the case, giving rise to this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date 2017.11.29 133429 IST Reason appeal are The appellant in this appeal is landlord who let out a shop situated at ground floor of the house to tenant named Amar Nath since deceased .
4, it was held that Moh.
Trial Court framed several issues.
Landlord issued a numberice terminating the tenancy of the tenant.
The only averment in respect of subletting is companytained in para 4 which reads as under That the deceased defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 beside number payment of allowed one Sri Mohd.
Appellant claimed that monthly rent was Rs.
The tenant is in default of the rent since 01.01.1995.
Issue No.
50 per day or for companysideration of some other amount.
Defendanttenant had rebutted the averments made in the plaint, it was pleaded that rate of monthly rent is Rs.
Ezaj as subtenant and in fact he was a worker in the shop of the defendanttenant.
The Trial Court has observed that numberdocument has been produced by the tenant to prove that the name of Mohd.
Landlord filed suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court praying for decree of eviction of the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as subletting.
Ezaj Khan, S o Mohd.
Zafar as subtenant in one portion of the shop and rent is being taken at the rate of Rs.
710/. It was denied that tenant is in arrears of rent.
Appellantplaintiff had filed various documentary evidence and in oral evidence Ram Murthi Devi PW.1, PW.2 Vineet Kumar, Pratap Singh PW.3 and Zalim Singh PW.4 were examined.
950 per month along with house tax and water charges.
The High Court vide its impugned judgment has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
50 per day from him.
The Ezaj Khan was undertaking the repair work of the watches in the above shop.
If so, its effect?
It was further pleaded that defendanttenant had kept another person, namely, Mohd.
The defendanttenant was also held liable to pay rent and damages.
On Issue No.
4 was with regard to subtenancy, which was to the following effect Whether defendants have kept Shri Moh.
Ezaj as a subtenant at the shop in question for Rs.
On behalf of the defendantstenants certain documentary evidence were filed and Kishan Kumar appeared as DW.1 and Dilip Kumar appeared as DW.2.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.2013 of Judge Small Causes Court, a Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Act, 1887 hereinafter referred to as Act 1887 was filed by the tenant in the High Court.
This appeal has been filed against judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 08.04.2013 by which judgment High Court while allowing the revision filed by the tenant set aside the order passed by Judge Small Causes Court directing the tenant to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the landlord and to pay rent and damages.
Trial Court after companysidering the evidence on record held that tenants were in arrears of rent and were number entitled to the benefit under Section 20 4 of the U. P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act 1972 hereinafter referred to as Act 1972 .
The suit was decreed directing the defendanttenant to hand over the vacant possession.
It was also mentioned in written statement that defendanttenant had never kept Moh.
Ezaj had been kept as subtenant, who was held to be in partial possession of the shop.
