ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. VIRENDRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the tenancy could not have been terminated by the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as it was not a valid notice.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiff that the building in question is exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been examined. After appreciation of evidence on record it was found that even as per the document of the plaintiff Paper No. 21-Ga it is established that the building in question was completed in the year 1983-84 the map of which was sanctioned in the year 1978.