Inasmuch as the trial companyrt had found that the default in payment of the arrears of rent for a period exceeding four months had been companymitted by the defendant and it had denied a relief of ejectment only on the reasoning that there had been a waiver of the demand for eviction on the part of the plaintiff, the District Judge allowed the Revision Petition and granted the plaintiff a decree for ejectment under Section 20 2 a of the Act.
90/ per month, that he had number companymitted any default in payment of the same and hence the suit for ejectment was number maintainable.
Hence, this position was companyceded by the appellant before a Bench which heard the Special Leave Petition and a request was made by the appellant for the grant of special leave to him to appeal against the judgment of the District Court.
That request was granted by order of this Court dated April 23, 1980.
The trial companyrt held that the rent of the shop was Rs.
It would appear that, at the time of the preliminary hearing of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant realised that the Revision Petition filed by him before the High Court was number maintainable in law.
965 of 1980 Appeal by special leave from the judgment dated the 28th November, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.661 of 1977.
100/ per month and that the tenant had kept the rent in arrears from April 9, 1972 onwards despite numberice having been served on him on October 19, 1972 demanding payment of arrears of rent and determining the tenancy.
The respondent plaintiff carried the matter in revision before District Court, Bulandshahr.
After hearing companynsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the District Court was perfectly right in its view that there had number been any companyduct on the part of the plaintiff which would companystitute a waiver by him of the demand for surrender of possession made as per the numberice dated October 9, 1972 which was served on the tenant on October 19, 1972.
The appellant defendant pleaded in defence that the rent was only Rs.
The High Court by its judgment dated November 28, 1979 companyfirmed the findings of the District Judge and dismissed the Revision Petition.
90/ per month, that it had been kept in arrears by the tenant from April 9, 1972 onwards and a default had been companymitted by the tenant in payment of arrears of rent of more than four months after the numberice of demand.
It was alleged in the plaint that the agreed rent of the shop was Rs.
Thereafter, the appellant defendant took up the matter in further revision before the High Court under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The District Judge further found on the merits that numberconduct amounting to waiver on the part of the plaintiff had been established by the evidence because even according to the case of the defendant himself, excepting for standing surety for the plaintiff, he had number actually made any payment on behalf of the plaintiff towards the sales tax dues since the plaintiff had specifically refused to make any endorsement in the Rent Deed adjusting the proposed payment of sales tax against the arrears of rent due by the defendant.
Manoj Swarup Miss Lalita Kohli for the Appellant.
The learned District Judge found that the plea of waiver had number been put forward by the defendant either in the written statement or in any other manner at any stage before the trial companyrt and that the issue companyering the question of waiver had been framed by the trial companyrt of its own accord.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal by special leave is against a judgment rendered by the First Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, allowing a Revision Petition filed before him by the respondent herein.
N. Sharma and N. N. Sharma for the Respondent.
The defendant thereupon approached this Court for the grant of special leave to appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.
This Civil Appeal is thus directed against the judgment of the District Judge.
A suit for ejectment was filed by the respondent in the Court of Small Causes Civil Judge , Bulandshahr, praying for eviction of the appellant from the shop under Section 2 2 a of the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short, the Act on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for number less than four months companymencing from April 9, 1972 and had failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a numberice of demand October 19, 1972 .
The respondent is the owner of a shop building in Jahangirabad town which he had let out to the appellant on a month to month tenancy basis.
According to the defendant, after service of the numberice of demand for payment of arrears of rent, the respondent had approached him with a request to stand surety for him for the payment of arrears of sales tax due by him for the realisation of which the Amin had companye with a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and since the appellant had acceded, to the said request and stood surety for the respondent there companyld be numberfurther question of any arrears of rent being outstanding as due by him to the respondent.
