JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R. P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri Pankaj Mithal learned counsel appearing for the caveator-applicant respondent No. 2 landlord.

(2.) The date chart annexed with the petition shows that Vipin Prakash Agarwal owner of the building in question within the municipal limit of the city of Bulandshahr was the owner and the accommodation in question was assessed for the first time on 1.4.1970 (as is evident from the impugned order that there is no such assessment on record to fix the day and month of the year 1970). The petitioner contends that he occupied the accommodation in question as tenant with an agreement and consent of the erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal.

(3.) The said owner, however, sold the property consisting of the accommodation in question on 28.8.1999. The petitioner further contends that erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal continuously accepted the rent, but the subsequent purchaser (present landlord respondent No. 2) without lawful excuse refused to accept the rent and hence he was constrained to file an application under Section 30 of the Act and deposited the rent therein. The petitioner has not filed relevant document and the order sheet of the proceedings under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to indicate as to whether Court had decided the matter after hearing the concerned parties taking in view that the landlord had refused to accept rent without lawful excuse.