FAKIR CHAND JATAV Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 13.2.2003 (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur, and the judgment and order dated 28.8.1998 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur. The dispute relates to a shop situated at Powel Bridge, near Employment Exchange, Shastrinagar, Saharanpur. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as the "Disputed shop".

(2.) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages etc., against the petitioner in respect of the disputed shop. It was, inter alia, alleged by the respondent in the suit that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 330/ - and that ten years had not elapsed since the construction of the disputed shop; and that the first assessment of the disputed shop had been made by the Nagar Mahapalika, Saharanpur in the year 1986; and that the disputed shop did not come within the purview of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short, also referred to as the "the Act"). It was, inter alia, further alleged by the respondent in the suit that by the notice dated 7.9.1992, the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the disputed shop was determined on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the said notice; and that the said notice was served on the petitioner on 9.9.1992; and that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the said notice, and instead gave incorrect reply to the said notice on 18.9.1992. The said suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 171 of 1992. Copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. As certain paragraphs of the said plaint were omitted in the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a complete copy of the plaint during the course of arguments which is taken on record.

(3.) BOTH the sides led oral and documentary evidence in the said suit. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Saharanpur by the Judgment and order dated 28.8.1998 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) decreed the said suit filed by the respondent. It was, inter alia, held in the said judgment and order dated 28.8.1998 that the first assessment of the disputed shop was made in the year 1986, and on the date of filing of the said suit, the period of 10 years had not elapsed; and that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable to the disputed shop; and that the notice given by the respondent to the petitioner was valid.