NARENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of orders dated 1.3.2011, 17.9.2010 and 18.5.2010 passed by respondent No.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of one room on ground floor on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in the house belonging to respondents No. 3 to 7. The father of respondents No. 3 to 5 filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 1984 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad, for ejectment of the petitioner (defendant) as well as recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement which was decreed on 21.11.1984. Aggrieved petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 96 of 1985 which was also dismissed on 20.2.1989 by IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5326 of 1989, Shri Narendra Singh Chauhan v. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad, in which initially ad interim order was granted by the Court and subsequently dismissed on 7.12.2009 by the High Court.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the respondents No. 3 to 5 had pleaded that building in dispute was constructed in the year 1977 clandestinely producing a map passed by prescribed authority but the room was never constructed on the first floor; that the map produced was confined to making construction on the first floor which was never constructed and he deliberately misled the Court into believing that the accommodation in dispute on rent by the petitioner on the first floor has been constructed in the year 1977 whereas the true fact is that it was more than 12 years prior to it and the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable; that father of respondents No. 3 to 5 had failed to discharge the onus to prove that the construction was new and exempted from the operation of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972; that during examination before the Trial Court the father of respondents No. 3 to 5 admitted that he acquired the house from his father who died 35 years ago and the building in question was purchased by him during his life time.