Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) I have heard Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra on behalf of respondent No. 1/2. This is an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 201 of 2001 arising out of Original Suit No. 720 of 1992. Original Suit No. 720 of 1992 was instituted by the plaintiff -respondent for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant -appellant, inter alia, on the ground that an open land was given on lease to the defendant over which unauthorisedly a "Kothri" was constructed and that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable, therefore, by service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy was terminated.
(2.) THE defendant contested the suit by claiming that the constructions were raised with the permission of the landlord, therefore, the defendant, was entitled to the benefit of section 29 -A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was claimed that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid as it provided only 30 days time to vacate when, in fact, the lease was for the purpose of establishing a factory and, as such, a notice of six months was required. Both the Courts below have found that the "Kothri", as alleged by the defendant, was not constructed with the consent of the landlord and that an open piece of land was let out, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not attracted. As regards, the validity of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Courts below found that there was nothing on record to show that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. Admittedly, the defendants were having a car service station, which cannot be taken as manufacturing. On the aforesaid finding, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was valid.
(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the Courts below on the ground that the findings recorded by the Courts below with respect to the applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as also the validity of the notice was not in accordance with law. It has been contended that once the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the letting had taken place in the year 1974 -75, and the suit was instituted in the year 1992, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable as the occupation had been for more than 20 years. This contention of the appellant is not sustainable in view of the finding recorded by both the Courts below that an open land was let out and that the constructions raised thereupon was not with the consent of the landlord. Once the finding has been recorded by both the Courts below that an open piece of land was let Out and that the constructions so raised were not with the consent of the landlord, the applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is out of question.;