KISHOR KAPOOR Vs. LAXMI NARAIN GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.P. Srivastava appearing for the respondent. Dispute relates to shop No. 2, property No. 40 situate at Shivaji Marg, Firozabad which was in the tenancy of the petitioner. Respondent-landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 01 of 2009 seeking relief for ejectment of the petitioner on the allegation, inter-alia that shop in question was let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 532/- per month excluding the water-tax and the construction of the shop was completed in the year 1987 hence the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not attracted. It was further asserted that tenant has failed to pay rent since January, 2008 hence his tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 08.08.2008. The suit was contested by the tenant-petitioner by filling written statement denying the plaint allegation. It was specifically asserted that construction of the shop in question is prior to 1980 and the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are fully applicable. It was also pleaded that respondent had not filed any sanction map to substantiate that shop was constructed in the year 1987. It was admitted in the written statement that he was inducted as tenant on 01.08.1988 and thereafter rent deed was also executed on 25.08.1988 and the entire rent was paid to the landlord till 28.01.2008 and when thereafter the landlord refused to accept the rent, it was sent by money order which was also not received and hence the rent was being deposited under the provisions of Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2008. It was further pleaded that entire rent for the period 25.01.2008 to 27.03.2009 has been deposited. Judge, Small Causes Court after analyzing the evidence brought on record by the parties decreed the suit on the finding that shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1987 and the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable and the tenancy was terminated by valid notice. The petitioner-tenant went up in revision which has also been dismissed.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that courts below have failed to consider the material fact that landlord has failed to file any sanction map of the shop in question or adduce any reliable evidence to prove the actual date of construction of the shop in dispute. It is further submitted that the courts below have also failed to consider the effect of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 passed in Original Suit No. 88 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as admission of the landlord therein that there has been no default in payment of rent.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.