- (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Jain learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Jain learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant and Sri K.K. Tiwari learned Counsel for the contesting Defendant-Respondent No. 1.
(2.) According to Sri Jain the Plaintiff-Appellant had inducted the Defendant-Respondent No. 1 in the shop in question and since the shop belonged to Nagar Ni-gam, Jhansi (Defendant-Respondent No. 2) the Plaintiff was paying rent directly to Nagar Nigam and as such the case set up by the Defendant-Respondent in his counter claim that the Plaintiff-Appellant is a licensee could not have been decreed. He submits that the Plaintiff had filed the suit that he be not evicted otherwise than by due course of law however, both the Courts below have dismissed his suit and allowed the counter claim of the Defendant-Respondent No. 1 for eviction of the Plaintiff-Appellant.
(3.) Sri Jain challenges the impugned judgments on the ground that once the Defendant-Respondent No. 1 inducted the Plaintiff-Appellant in the shop belonging to the Nagar Nigam, Jhansi a vacancy arose and therefore even if the status of the Plaintiff-Appellant is considered to be that of a license he would still have protection under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. The other submission is that the rent receipts which were found by the Courts below not in the name of Plaintiff-Appellant but the rent was paid in the name of the Defendant-Respondent and produced by the Plaintiff-Appellant were duly proved by him and therefore he was a tenant of the Nagar Nigam, Jhansi which was admittedly owner of the shop in question and the Plaintiff-Appellant could be evicted in accordance with law only at the instance of Nagar Nigam, Jhansi and not at the instance of the Defendant-Respondent No. 1;