ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MEENA GANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was filed by opposite party No. 1 against the defendant-applicant and opposite party No. 2 for eviction from the disputed shop and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant-applicant filed written statement, but it was struck off under the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5. C.P.C. That order of rejection was maintained by the High Court. Thereafter, the suit has been decreed by the trial court. Against that decree, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Shri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant and Shri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1.

(3.) It is contended that the main ground taken in the suit is that U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, is not applicable to the disputed shop and the applicant is liable to ejectment. The only allegation regarding it in the plaint as well as in the replication is that the shop in dispute is newly constructed. It is argued that it has nowhere been mentioned as to when it was constructed.