MOHAN LAL Vs. KANCHEDI LAL RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition. It arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 1996 filed against the respondent tenant for recovery of ar­rears of rent and ejectment in respect of Shop No. 460 situate at Civil Lines, Rani Bagh, Lalitpur. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and is in arrears of rent since 1.11.1995 whose tenancy has been terminated by a notice dated 18.12.1995 served on 26.12.1995. It was further pleaded that the defendant tenant ille­gally by removing the wooden partition wall has taken the possession of the other portion of the shop, which was earlier in occupancy of the petitioner landlord. By way of replication ejectment was also sought for on the ground of denial of title of the landlord. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that there is no default in payment of rent and that the tenant has not en­croached upon the other portion of the shop. In addition to other pleas it was pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as the accommodation in question is an old construction and has been let out to the defendant tenant without there being any allotment order by the District Magistrate. In other words, the letting having taken place in violation of sections 11 and 13 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the suit is not maintainable. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The following seven issues were struck by the Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties :-

(2.) THE suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2001.

(3.) UNDER Issue No. 1, it was found by the Trial Court that the property in dispute was let out to the respondent tenant in pursuance of the rent agreement dated 7.1.1984. The execution of the said rent agreement was denied by the re­spondent tenant. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court after making analysis of the evidence of the parties as also taking into consideration the report of the handwriting expert, reached to the conclusion that the said rent agreement was executed by the respondent tenant. The said finding has also been confirmed by the Revisional Court. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Two Courts below under Issue No. 1 stands confirmed.