R. B Mehrotra, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF-respondent no. 3 Purusharthi Avas Sahkari Samiti, Indrapuri, Tahsil and district Etah (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) is admittedly the owner of shop no. 17 for which Municipal Board no. 58 has been allotted situate at Railway Road, Etah. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant of the aforesaid shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a small causes suit being small causes suit no. 43 of 1985 against the present petitioner with the allegation that the plaintiff is a registered samiti which has got constructed some shop at Railway Road, Etah of which the plaintiff is the owner and landlord The plaintiff did not give any information of the completion of the shop to Municipal Board, Etah neither the completion of the aforesaid shop was recorded in the Municipal Board, Etah. On the date of the construction, the shop was outside the limits of Municipal Board, Etah. The first assessment of the shop in dispute was made on 1st of April, 1981 as such the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act no. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not attracted for the shop in dispute. The further statement in the plaint was that the aforesaid shop was rented out to the petitioner-tenant at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. The shop was taken for the business purposes but the petitioner without the permision of the landlord has converted the user of the shop from business to residential purposes. It was also claimed in the plaint that the petitioner-tenant has not paid rent from 1-1-1983 to 13-2-1985 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month totalling Rs. 381.80 p. The said amount was not paid by the tenant even after serving the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner-tenant is defaulter in payment of rent and as such is liable for ejectment Petitioner-tenant contested the suit and filed his written statement. In the written statement it was admitted by the petitioner-tenant that he was tenant of shop no. 17 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month but contended that the shop was not constructed toy the plaintiff and it was stated' that the shop was acquired by the respondent- landlord from one Sri Devi Prasad Kapoor some time in the year 1960, us such the provisions of the Act are fully applicable to the shop in dispute. It was also stated in the written statement that the petitioner-tenant had been regularly paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. The notice has been served on the petitioner on false allegations. The entire rent has been paid to the respondent landlord upto 31st of December, 1984. Subsequent thereto a money order was sent on 20-3-1985 which has been refused to be accepted by the secretary of the respondent landlord. The rent from 1-1-1985 to 31-8-1986 is doe against the petitioner tenant for which the petitioner had submitted a tender in the court It was also stated in the written statement that the petitioner tenant is in service and the shop in dispute was taken for the purposes of residence from the very beginning. The plaintiff respondent never objected to such user. The secretary of the Samiti had never been issuing receipts of rent regularly. No rent is due against the petitioner tenant. The suit has been to harass the petitioner. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court held that the date of completion of the shop is to be determined under Explanation I (a) to sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act. Admittendly there is no record available with regard to any report of the completion of the shop in dispute or with regard do the local authority having recorded the completion of the shop in dispute and the first assessment of the building having been made on 1-4-1981. the shop should be presumed to have been constructed on the said date and the suit having been filed in the year 1985. the shop was not within the purview of the provisions of the Act. The trial court also held that the petitioner-tenant has not paid the rent of the shop from 1-1-1983 to 13-2-1985 nor had deposited the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing of the suit, as such the petitioner-tenant is default in payment of rest and it liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute.
(3.) THE trill court, however, further held that the plaintiff-landlord has failed to prove that the shop was let out for business purposes, as such the petitioner-tenant cannot be held guilty for change in the user of the premises in question. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for effectment of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute and also for arrears of rent from 1-1-1983 to 13-2-1985. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner-tenant preferred a revision The HI Additional District Judge, Etah dismissed the petitioner's revision, vide his judgment, dated 33- 8-1991.;