Honourable Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.2.2008 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 2005 and order dated 7.2.2011, passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2008. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of the accommodation in dispute which has been purchased by the present respondent from its earlier owner Sri Devendra Kumar Chhabra, by registered sale-deed dated 5.7.2002. The landlord-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 2005 in respect of shop in dispute being Shop No. 86 (new number 89) located at Mohalla Purva, Kamboh Gang in front of Jain Dharmshala, Railway Road, Meerut, inter alia that petitioner was tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.180/- per month since its erstwhile owner Devendra Kumar Chabda and has not paid rent to the landlord since 5.12.2004. It was also averred in the plaint that the petitioner had changed the use of the shop in dispute without any written permission of the landlord as provided under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as such the said shop was liable to be vacated. The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement, inter alia that the respondent-landlord had full knowledge about the change of user of the shop in dispute and that the respondent-landlord has not given any rent receipts for the period 4.12.2004 and 4.7.2005 amounting to.Rs. 1,260/-. It was also averred in the written statement filed by the petitioner that he had sent rent through money order, but the same was refused by the respondent-landlord.
(3.) IT is stated that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed four issues namely (1) whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent? (2) whether the defendant is entitled to get benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act?; (3) whether the defendant has changed the user of shop from commercial to residential purposes in respect of the back portion of the shop, and the defendant is liable to be ejected on this ground? It is also stated that the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 22.2.2008 illegally and erroneously held that the petitioner is a defaulter; that the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 20 (4) was without permission of Court and therefore invalid, not only this the trial Court also illegally held that the petitioner has changed the user of premises from commercial to residential in part. Upon such erroneous grounds the trial Court decreed the suit No. 91 of 2005.;