Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the trial court dated 23.3.1996 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order of the revisional court dated 23.4.1997 affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had taken the shop in question from respondent No. 3 at monthly rent of Rs. 200 for a period of 11 months. He had executed a rent note on 16th May, 1993. The landlady-respondent No. 3 gave a notice on 10th August. 1994 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and demanding arrears of rent alleged to be due since 15.4.1994. The petitioner did not comply with the said notice. She gave another notice on 19.9.1994 purporting to be under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act stating therein that the tenancy was for a period of 11 months and the said period having expired, the petitioner was liable to deliver possession to her. As the petitioner did not deliver possession of the disputed shop to respondent No. 3, she filed Suit No. 9 of 1994 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court. Ballia for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. The petitioner filed written statement and denied that he had committed default in payment of arrears of rent. It was stated that the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short Act) were applicable and he was not liable for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 23.3.1996 on the finding that the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The petitioner was liable to pay rent for the period since 16.4.1994 at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said Judgment. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 23.4.1997.
(3.) I have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.;