Uttarakhand High Court

Jogendra Arora vs /1. Smt. Kamlesh Mahara on 10 June, 2025

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                                             2025:UHC:4725



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
             AT NAINITAL
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                    10TH JUNE, 2025

         CIVIL REVISION NO. 141 of 2016

Jogendra Arora                            .....Revisionist

                         Versus

Anand Singh Mahara(since deceased) through Legal
Representatives

1/1. Smt. Kamlesh Mahara
1/2. Ashok Singh Mahara
1/3. Pradeep Kumar Mahara               .....Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal,
-Defendant                    Senior Advocate assisted
                              by Mr. Suryakant
                              Maithani, Advocate.

Counsel for the             : Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya,
Respondents                   Senior Advocate assisted
                              by Mr. Tushar
                              Upadhyaya, Advocate.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The present Revision under Section 25 of the

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been filed

challenging the judgment and decree dated

28.09.2016, passed by learned Judge, Small Cause

Court/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in SCC Suit No.01 of

2015, by which, the learned Judge while decreeing the

suit has directed the revisionist-defendant to vacate the

2025:UHC:4725 tenanted property-in-question and handover the

peaceful possession of the said property to the plaintiff

within a period of three months from the date of the

judgment. The defendant has been further directed to

pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from

09.05.2015 till the actual delivery of possession of the

property.

2. The case of the respondent -plaintiff is that

he is the owner and landlord of the shop and godown of

Building No. 586, situated at Purana Bazar, District

Pithoragarh. The defendant was the tenant of the

plaintiff in the suit property at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-

per month. In spite of repeated demands, rent was not

paid by the defendant since 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015.

A notice dated 02.03.2015 was sent to the defendant

demanding arrears of rent and to vacate the suit

property. The defendant did not reply. Since

01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 arrears of rent were not

paid by the defendant, a notice dated 01.04.2015 was

sent to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and

possession of the suit property. The notice was received

by the defendant. The defendant replied through his

Advocate on 10.04.2015, in which, it was stated that

the defendant has paid arrears of rent to the plaintiff in

2025:UHC:4725 his account, opened in the State Bank of India. Since

the possession of the suit property was not handed

over to the plaintiff and outstanding amounts were not

paid, the said suit was filed.

3. The revisionist-defendant filed his written

statement before the trial court. He has stated in his

written statement that the property in-question was

running on rent for last 60 years and rent was

enhanced time and again and at present, he is paying

Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent. He paid rent by cash or

by cheque or deposited in the bank. He sent rent

through registered letters for the month of April to July,

2013, for the month of August, September, October

and November, 2013, for the month of December, 2013

and for the month of January, February, March, April,

May, June, and July to September, 2014. The rent was

received by the plaintiff through cheques, sent by the

registered letters. The plaintiff refused to receive rent

after the month of October, 2014, therefore, rent was

deposited in the State Bank of India. A suit was filed by

the plaintiff, which was numbered as R.C.C. Case No.

02 of 2013, "Anand Singh Mahara vs. Jogendra Arora".

The said case was dismissed on 26.08.2014. Therefore,

the plaintiff is not entitled to file the present Suit

2025:UHC:4725 against the defendant.

4. The trial court has framed the following

points for determination:-

"(i) Whether plaintiff was in arrear of Rs.

18,000/- of rent in respect to shop in-question

since 01.10.2014? if yes, its effect.

(ii) Whether vide notice 9C dated 01.04.2015,

issued on behalf of the plaintiff, tenancy of

defendant was terminated soon after 30 days of

receiving of above notice? If yes, its effect.

(iii) Whether the Rent Control Case No. 02 of

2013, "Anand Singh Mahra vs. Jogendra Arora"

was rejected as stated by the defendant? If yes,

its effect.

(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief

claimed?"

5. The plaintiff had filed a copy of registered

notice dated 01.04.2015 with acknowledgment, issued

by the Advocate of the plaintiff to defendant and reply

to the said quit notice.

6. The revisionist-defendant had filed photocopy

of bank deposited slips, registered envelops with

acknowledgement, a letter for sending rent with

2025:UHC:4725 cheque, registry receipt, carbon copy of letter with

registry receipt, letter dated 07.11.2014 with registry

receipt, registered envelope with AD and bank

deposited slips in his evidence.

7. The respondent-plaintiff examined himself

before the trial court

8. The revisionist-defendant examined himself

as DW1 and one witness Chanchal Singh Chauhan,

DW2.

9. The learned trial court has decided the point

for determination no. 1 against the plaintiff and point

for determination no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The

trial court has held that the order dated 26.08.2014,

passed in RCC Case No.02 of 2013, "Anand Singh vs.

Jogendra Arora" does not operate as res judicata in the

present matter. Accordingly, the point for determination

no.3 has been disposed of.

10. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned

counsel for the revisionist and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya,

learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tushar

Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. The respondent no.1 (now deceased, the

2025:UHC:4725 original plaintiff) was the landlord of the property-in-

question and the revisionist-defendant was the tenant

of the property. The plaintiff served upon the defendant

a notice dated 01.04.2015 to quit. But, the defendant

did not vacate the property. The plaintiff, therefore,

filed the said SCC suit.

12. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior

Advocate contended that the sole ground was taken in

the said quit notice that the tenant committed default

in paying the rent for the period from 01.10.2014 to

31.03.2015, but the plaintiff has failed to prove the

same, hence, the suit, filed by the plaintiff, ought to

have been dismissed by the trial court.

13. This fact is not disputed between the parties

that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of

Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, "Act,

1972") (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) is

not applicable in the present matter.

14. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the respondent - plaintiff,

on the other hand, contended that as the provisions

of the Act, 1972 did not apply to the property-in-

dispute, it was open to the plaintiff to terminate the

2025:UHC:4725 tenancy of the defendant.

15. The quit notice dated 01.04.2015 was

given to the defendant which was fully legal and

valid and if the Act, 1972 is not applicable, then suit

for eviction is liable to be decreed after termination

of tenancy without there being any default in

payment of rent or any other ground. Therefore, for

termination of tenancy, it is not necessary that the

tenant must be defaulter.

16. The material portion of the quit notice

dated 01.04.2015 is being quoted hereunder :-

The plaintiff sent notice to the defendant

calling upon him to pay the rent of the

property in his tenancy with effect from

01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 within thirty

days of the receipt of the said notice and

to vacate the property in his tenancy on

the expiry of thirty days next after the

receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, his

tenancy shall stand determined.

17. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the revisionist - defendant

2025:UHC:4725 invited attention on the relief of the plaint where the

plaintiff has claimed rent from 01.10.2014 to

09.05.2015. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior

Advocate contended that in the light of the said relief, it

is clear that the plaintiff had waived the quit notice

dated 01.04.2015.

18. The quit notice dated 01.10.2014 is very

clear of the intention of the plaintiff that he did not

want to keep the defendant as his tenant and the

tenancy shall stand determined on the expiry of the