RAMESH CHAND Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question in this petition is whether the disputed accommodation should be treated as vacant.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of the disputed premises. He filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment in the year 1987 against the petitioner stating that he was tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 100 in the disputed accommodation. A notice dated 13.1.1987 was given to him demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy but as he failed to comply with the notice he was liable for eviction. The petitioner on the date of first hearing deposited the entire arrears of rent with interest and cost of the suit under Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On such deposit being made, the trial court dismissed the suit on 1.5.1992.

(3.) After the suit was dismissed respondent No. 3 filed an application on 21.4.1994 for release of the disputed accommodation with the allegations that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation. He had let out the accommodation without an allotment order and as the tenancy was void, the petitioner should be treated as unauthorised occupant. The petitioner filed an objection to the said application. It was stated that he was an old tenant and was not an unauthorised occupant. He was further advised to file an application for allotment and in that application, he stated that he was in occupation of the disputed shop for the last more than 15 years with consent of the landlord.