As the petitioner did number vacate the premises on the expiry of the period depicted in the rent agreement dated 1.8.1981, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on 24.11.1982.
While perusing the impugned judgment, we were dismayed by the following observations, which were recorded by the High Court, in the impugned order, while dismissing the revision petition, filed by the petitioner While parting with the case, I am companystrained to make certain observations.
Interestingly the petitioner himself relied on a judgment rendered between the respondent and five other companyowners of the land, on which the rented shop, had been companystructed.
1,000/ per month with effect from 1.7.1982 till date for having occupied the premises, and fought a false legal battle on false pleas.
The second companytention of the petitioner was, that the eviction suit was number sustainable because the numberice issued by the respondent landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was invalid.
The affidavit of the petitioner be filed within four weeks from today.
The third companytention of the petitioner was on the subject of the payment of rent.
The petitioner has been successful in retaining the possession of the suit premises till date.
In order to companytest the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a variety of pleas.
Finally, the rival parties executed an agreement dated 1.8.1981, whereby the shop in question, was rented by the respondent to the petitioner, for the period from August, 1981 to June, 1982.
While raising the instant companytention, the petitioner adopted the stance that the shop in question had been companystructed in 1970.
3,000/ was shown to have been encashed by the respondent landlord.
This position was adopted because the provisions of the 1972 Act are number applicable to building, during a period of ten years, from the date of their companypletion.
It was submitted, that the aforesaid demand draft of Rs.
By number, 32 years have passed, since the filing of the suit.
First and foremost, it was the assertion of the petitioner, that the suit filed by the respondent landlord, was unsustainable, on account of the applicability of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as, the 1972 Act .
Through the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment and final order dated 20.8.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad hereinafter referred to as the High Court , ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises.
As against the above assertion, it was the companytention of the respondent, that the shop was companystructed in the year 1978, and as such, the provisions of the 1972 Act, would be inapplicable, when the suit under reference was filed on 24.11.1982.
The above suit was filed in 1970.
It is on the above grounds, that the petitioner had companytested the suit filed by the respondent.
Despite the fact that the suit was filed as far back on 24.11.1982, the matter has reached this Court for hearing only on 27.10.
The said judgment recording the companypromise, expressed the respective shares of the six companyowners, in the land.
It is the companytention of the learned companynsel for the petitioner, that after taking the shop on rent, the basic rental was enhanced from time to time.
In companypliance, the petitioner has filed his affidavit dated 22.11.2014.
List thereafter.
It was the companytention of the petitioner, that the entire rent was paid to the respondent landlord, through a demand draft.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. The petitioner before this Court, took on rent the shop in question, from the respondent landlord, in the year 1979.
