RAJESH TANDON, J. - (1.)HEARD Sri M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhari for the revisionist and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the respondent.
(2.)PRESENT revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2004 passed bys the District Judge, Nainital in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000.
(3.)BRIEFLY stated the plaintiff respondent Smt. Pratibha Chandra has filed a suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of the rent and damages for Rs. 27,000/ - and for eviction of the defendant from the disputed premises. The defendant revisionist was the tenant on the dispute premises at the rate of Rs. 600/ - per month with 25% increase after 48 months. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to pay the rent after 1.2.1994. The plaintiff sent notices to the defendant on 29.4.99, 27.8.1999 and 7.10.1999 but the defendant refused to accept the notices. The plaintiff has sent the notice to the respondent by registered post on 7.1.2000 which was served on the defendant on 20.1.2000 but the defendant has neither vacated the suit premises nor paid arrears of rent, hence the suit.
Defendant has filed the written statement and has stated that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the premises in suit. The shop was constructed on the Nazul land and the owner of that land is Nagar Palika. The defendant applied for free -hold of that land for which he has deposited money. Plaintiff is not the landlord of the disputed premises; therefore, no question of rent arises.

;