1. Heard Shri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Additional District / Sessions Judge, Special Judge, SC / ST Act, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Original SCC Suit No.121 of 2013. The suit was filed by the opposite party for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit.
3. The suit was filed on the allegations that the defendant-revisionist was a defaulter since 15.06.2004, therefore, his tenancy was terminated by a registered notice dated 12.03.2013, which was duly served on 14.03.2013.
4. Upon the expiry of the period of notice, the suit was filed as the possession of the tenant became unauthorized. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is a religious society and therefore, the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not applicable, in view of Section 2(1) (b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
5. Upon contest, the Small Causes Court decreed the suit, directing eviction of the revisionist from House No.104-A / 336, Rambagh, Kanpur Nagar. A decree for Rs.20,060/- was also passed. It was further provided that with effect from 14.04.2013, till possession was actually delivered, damages @ Rs.600/- per month would be payable. Aggrieved by this order, this SCC revision has been filed.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that admittedly the plaintiff is a registered Society. Therefore, the provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply to it till it was established that the property in question had been built and was owned by such a Society, in view of Section 2(1) (f) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
7. In the instant case, admittedly, the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff, a registered Society, by means of a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2004. The revisionist have been a tenant for more than 40 years and therefore, the provisions of the Rent Control Act was fully applicable to the accommodation in question.
8. Further, it has been submitted that the entire arrears of rent claimed had been paid on the first date of hearing and therefore, the revisionist was entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Rent Control Act.
9. It is next submitted that the suit had been filed on behalf of the registered Society, through its President, Sardar Harbinder Singh, who was not authorised to file the suit. The entire rent which was only Rs.62/- per month had been paid. In case there was default, the revisionist was entitled to a notice, under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, while in fact the notice served upon the revisionist is one, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
10. It is also submitted that the finding on the rate of rent being Rs.600/- per month is wrong and illegal.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record.
12. The first question to be considered is whether exemption from the provisions of the Rent Control Act claimed by the plaintiff was in view of Section 2(1) (f).
13. It is established on record that the building in question was not built by the plaintiff. It was purchased by means of a registered sale deed in the year 2004. A copy of this sale deed is available on record. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiff-opposite party cannot claim exemption from the ambit of Act No.13 of 1972, in case reliance is placed upon Section 2(1)(f). It has been so held in the case of Methodist Church in Southern Asia v. District Judge, Badaun.
14. This submission of learned counsel for the revisionist cannot be accepted because a perusal of the notice terminating the tenancy of the revisionist specifically refers to Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act, which reads as follows -
"Any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institutions."
15. In this regard, perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Court below has observed that the plaintiff is a religious institution and that a Gurudwara is situated in part of the premises in question.
16. Besides, the revisionist in his cross-examination has admitted that Guru Singh Sabha manages Gurudwara and also organises Guru Parwa and that it is a religious institution.
17. In view of this categorical admission by the defendant himself, it is not open for him to plead to the contrary and the findings returned on this issue cannot be faulted with.
18. On the question as to whether or not, the suit could have been filed by Sardar Harbinder Singh Lord, it would be relevant to note that there was evidence on record to show that the Society had passed a resolution for filing the suit. Sardar Harbinder Singh Lord being the President of the said society was fully competent to have filed the suit.
19. The finding on the question of the rent of the accommodation in question has been recorded upon appreciation of the evidence on record. This finding of fact, cannot be interfered with in a revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, unless, it shows to be perverse or a findings of fact which no reasonable person could arrive at. No perversity has been pleaded or proved. This finding therefore, calls for no interference.
20. The last question for consideration is whether or not the plaintiff could have terminated the tenancy by means of a notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or whether a notice under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, should have been issued as has been submitted.
21. This submission lacks substance because it is settled law that a landlord can always terminate a tenancy by a valid notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This notice does not require any reason. The only requirement under law is that there should be an unequivocal intention to terminate the tenancy.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
/>22. Upon a perusal of a notice, a clear and unequivocal intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy has been expressed therein. 23. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with forfeiture on account of non payment of the rent. The instant case was not one of forfeiture for non payment of rent. 24. Moreover, since the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not attracted in the instant case, there is no question of the tenant-revisionist being entitled to the benefit of Subsection 4 of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision fails and is dismissed.