The revisionists are tenants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment and arrear of rent mainly on the ground that the revisionists have not paid the rent. The suit has been decreed on the ground that the rent has not been paid and the revisionists had defaulted in making the payment of rent.
The contention of the revisionists is that they were paying the rent either to the plaintiffs or the sister of the plaintiffs. The receipts were also filed before the court below and the same have been kept in a sealed cover. It appears that there was a partition suit, which was decreed on 1.8.2005 and the portion in which the revisionists were tenants came in the share of the plaintiffs but no information whatsoever has been given about the said partition decree and, therefore, the revisionists continued to pay the rent to the sister of the plaintiffs.
Sri Kripa Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents states that the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that no rent receipt has been filed and even the rent has not been deposited on the first date of hearing as required under Section 20 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has referred paragraphs-10 and 12 of the affidavit, filed along with the revision. In paragraph-10 of the affidavit, it is stated that the defendants brought on record the rent receipts evidencing payment of rent to Simple Gupta till August, 2006 (Vide 95Ga). By order of the trial court, the rent receipts were kept in a sealed cover to avoid tampering. The sealed cover was opened at the time of hearing. The counsel for the revisionists emphatically placed reliance on the rent receipts to demonstrate the rent till August, 2006 was accepted by Simple Gupta. Photostat copy of these rent receipts have been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. In paragraph-12 of the affidavit, it is stated that the finding in the impugned order that no rent receipt evidencing payment of rent to Simple Gupta was brought on record is illegal and perverse and in ignorance of the documents paper no. 95Ga has been filed.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit, the matter requires consideration.
Let the respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in the week commencing 16.8.2011.
The office is directed to summon the record of the trial court in S.C.C. Suit no. 29 of 2006 and be placed on the next date fixed. It is made clear that the entire case of the revisionists is based on the averments made in paragraphs-10 and 12 of the affidavit. In case if the averments made in paragraphs-10 and 12 are found to be false, a strict action will be taken against the revisionists for stating the wrong facts in the affidavit.
Till the next date of listing, the revisionists may not be evicted from the premises in dispute provided the revisionists pay the entire decreetal amount within 15 days and continue to pay the rent to the extent of 50% of the market rate in future.
Order Date :- 6.7.2011 OP