VISHNU SHARAN PANDEY Vs. SUNIL KUMAR BHALOTIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent caveator. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent decrees of eviction dated 2.3.2000 which was affirmed in revision vide order dated 17.2.2010.

(2.) It appears that the respondent landlord instituted a SCC Suit No. 12 of 1983 for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the disputed shop inter alia with the allegation that he was a tenant at Rs. 300/- per month and was inducted in the newly constructed building on 1.10.1982 and a due rent deed for 11 months was executed between the parties. Further it was stated that the premises was assessed for the first time w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not apply. It was also asserted that without permission of the landlord he had inducted a partner and without his consent he had made material alterations and when his elder brother had gone to demand rent in March, 1983 the tenant assaulted the brother and despite registered notice he neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent. It was also asserted that tenancy itself came to an end on 31.8.1983 and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted.

(3.) The petitioner tenant contested the suit admitting his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but contending that the premises was built in 1971 and was covered by the Act. It was also asserted that the landlord had obtained his signatures on blank paper saying that it was necessary for use in the Income Tax Department and neither he had inducted any new partner nor he had substantially damaged the premises. The petitioner also denied that he was in arrears of rent from December, 1982 to 31.8.1983.