Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Judge. Small Causes Court dated 4.5.1996 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 23.5.1996 dismissing the revision against the said judgment.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is tenant of respondent No. 3 in the basement of Building No. 140 constructed on Plot No. 5. Navyug Market. Ghaziabad on monthly rent of Rs. 1.822. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 executed a lease deed on 1.7.1985 whereby it was agreed that the tease will be for a period of 11 months with an option for continuing the lease for a further period of 11 months and maximum upto five years on the same terms and conditions. The lease deed was signed by both the parties. Before expiry of 11 months, respondent. No. 3 wrote a letter on 3.3.1986 that he is agreed to let out the building already in possession of the Bank for a period of 5 years with option to enhance the period of lease for the period of next five years.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 sent notice dated 3.7.1990 to the petitioner terminating its tenancy and asking it to hand over the possession. The petitioner did not comply with the notice. Respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 65 of 1990 for eviction with the allegations that the building in question was constructed in the beginning of year 1985 and the City Board, Ghaziabad. assessed it with effect from 1.7,1985 and, therefore, provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction] Act. 1972 (in short the Act) were not applicable. The petitioner contested the suit. It was stated that the building is old and the provisions of the Act were applicable. It also took the plea that the suit was barred by principle of estoppel as respondent No. 3 had agreed to let out for five years which had not expired on the date of filing of the suit. The trial court decreed the suit on the finding that the building in question was constructed in the year 1985 and the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The lease was for a period of 11 months and as it was not a registered document, the lease cannot be taken for the period of five years. The suit was accordingly decreed. The judgment has been affirmed in revision.;