BHOLA SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. JAMEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents and perused the record.

(2.) Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 5.2018 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahar in Revision No. 32 of 2015 as well as the impugned order dated 3.12015 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bulandshahar.

(3.) By the impugned judgement dated 12.2015, the suit filed by the landlord-respondents was allowed and the revision against the same filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed. The suit was filed on the ground that tenant-petitioner was let out the shop in question in the year 2008. The construction is a new construction raised in the year 1990-1991 and there was an agreement to sale wherein it was clearly entered that the accommodation is new building and rent control Act does not apply on the aforesaid building. As such, it was asserted that the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable. A notice under Sec. 106 of the Act was given to the tenant-petitioner, which was duly replied by him. On issue no. 1 regarding validity of notice, it was found that the registered notice for termination of tenancy was duly given to the tenant, which was received by him on 20.8.2012 and was replied, however, rent was not paid. As such, the notice was found to be validly given. On issue no. 2 regarding applicability of the Act, after appreciation of evidence, documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, given by both the parties, it was found that construction was a new construction raised in the year 1990-91 and it was assessed for the first time in the year 1990-91. The claim of the tenant-petitioner that the shop was constructed in the year 1983 was rejected. On issue no. 3 regarding default in payment of rent, the trial Court found that there was no default in payment of rent. The benefit of deposit of rent made under Sec. 20 (4) of the Act was denied on the ground that the Act is not applicable. Other issues were decided in favour of the landlord and the suit was allowed. The lower appellate Court while upholding the other findings, however, reversed the finding of trial Court regarding default of rent and held that there was default in payment of rent.